SUNOCO, INC (R&M) — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF320095016_operator response to NOPV PCP_10192009.pdf#

320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED September 17, 2009 Mr. Vincent Kelley Sr. Vice President Refining and Supply Sun Refining and Marketing (Sunoco R&M) 1735 Market Street Suite LL Philadelphia, PA 19103 CPF 3-2009-5016 Dear Mr. Kelley: On October 24-28, 2005, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Toledo Refinery pipeline facilities in Toledo, Ohio. As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:#

320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf, page 21. 195.406 Maximum operating pressure (b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure within this limit. Sunoco R&M exceeded 110% of the MOP (605 psig) on Line 59, which feeds the Buckeye York Street pumping station, on November 17, 2004, for a period of 34 minutes. A hydrostatic test was conducted on Line 59 on October 7, 2004. The 688 psig test pressure established an MOP of 550.4 psig. A high pressure shutdown device was installed on Line 59 on October 29, 2004, however the device was not fully programmed (placed into operation) until February 22, 2005. On November 17, 2004, the pipeline was operated at pressures ranging from 621.6 to 697.5 psig for a period of 34 minutes. This pressure excursion reportedly resulted from a valve closure at the Buckeye pumping station. This issue was initially discovered by the Process Safety Management Coordinator while reviewing operating data, on March 11, 2005. 2. 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control procedures established under Sec. 195.402(c)(3) why compliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank. Sunoco R&M has not cathodically protected three breakout tanks in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. Sunoco R&M has also not indicated in their corrosion control procedures why cathodic protection of these breakout tanks is not necessary. Breakout Tank #’s 1601, 1602 and 16015 are not cathodically protected. This can be in compliance with the regulations if the operator notes in the corrosion control procedures why it is not necessary for the safety of the tank(s). In order to make that determination a number of items associated with the tanks need to be investigated. These include: Tank Design, Construction History, Type of Service, Inspection/Corrosion History, and Other Factors. Sunoco R&M has indicated 2#

320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf, page 3that these items were discussed internally in 2004, and those personnel that were involved agreed that cathodic protection was not required for continued safe/reliable operation of the breakout tanks. Only limited information has been provided concerning the 2004 study. An e-mail communication from October 18, 2005 indicates that the tanks are used for gas oil storage, and that they were scheduled to be taken out of service / decommissioned in 2008. Tank #1602 was demolished late in 2008. A status update for Tank #’s 1601 and 16015 was provided via e-mail on September 1, 2009. The e-mail indicates that Sunoco R&M has decided Tanks #’s 1601 and 16015 will remain in service. Another study was completed per API 651, and it was determined that cathodic protection should be installed to protect the tank bottoms. Currently, separate projects involving installation of monitoring wells as a method of leak detection, and installation of cathodic protection for corrosion control of the tank bottoms are in the process of being implemented. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $32,500 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $32,500 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco R&M. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted3#

320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf, page 4information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2009-5016 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Ivan A. Huntoon Director, Central Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 4#

320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf, page 5PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sunoco R&M a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sunoco R&M with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of cathodic protection or the adequate justification why such protection is not required on Breakout Tanks 1601 and 16015, Sunoco R&M must develop a plan (including the time frame) for installing and putting into service a cathodic protection system. In lieu of installing such a cathodic protection system, Sunoco R&M may provide adequate justification to demonstrate cathodic protection is not required. In either event, Sunoco R&M shall provide a response within 60 days of receipt of this notice outlining the status of plans for installation of a cathodic protection system or providing justification that a cathodic protection system is not required. 2. Sunoco R&M shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Ivan Huntoon, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 5#

320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDECEMBER 31, 2012 Mr. Chuck J. Bullard President Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) 1735 Market Street, Suite LL Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: CPF No. 3-2009-5016 Dear Mr. Bullard: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $32,500. It further finds that Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS Mr. John Pickering, Senior Vice President, Manufacturing, Sunoco, Inc. Refining & Marketing, 1735 Market Street, Suite LL, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Mr. David Hoffman, Vice President, Toledo Refining Company, LLC, 1819 Woodville Road, Oregon, Ohio 43616 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), ) CPF No. 3-2009-5016 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER Between October 24-28, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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 Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) (Sunoco R&M or Respondent), in Toledo, Ohio. Sunoco R&M operates various crude oil and petroleum products pipelines and terminal facilities from Texas and the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes Region.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 17, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco R&M had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.406(b) and 195.573(d) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $32,500 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the other alleged violation. Sunoco R&M responded to the Notice by letters dated October 19 and November 19, 2009 (collectively, Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, Sunoco R&M did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: 1 http://www.sunocologistics.com/Customers/Business-Lines/Asset-Map/130/ (last accessed December 12, 2012).#

320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf, page 32 Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states: § 195.406 Maximum operating pressure. (a) … (b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure within this limit. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure in Line 59 to exceed 110 percent of the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of 605 psig. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on November 17, 2004, Sunoco R&M permitted Line 59 to operate at pressures ranging from 621.6 to 697.5 psig for a period of 34 minutes. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent vi-olated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure in Line 59 to exceed 110 percent of the MOP of 605 psig. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states: § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (a)… (d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with [American Petroleum Institute] API Recommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) why compliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to cathodically protect three breakout tanks in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651 (RP 651). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco R&M failed to cathodically protect breakout tanks 1601, 1602, and 16015 or, alternatively, to demonstrate that under its procedures compliance with the cathodic protection requirements of RP 651 was not necessary for these tanks, based on their design and operating parameters and other relevant factors. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to cathodically protect breakout tanks 1601, 1602, and 16015 in accordance with RP 651. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent.#

320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf, page 43 ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. 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; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty 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 $32,500 for the violations cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure in Line 59 to exceed 110 percent of the MOP of 605 psig. In its Response, Sunoco R&M explained that the root cause of the overpressure event was the inadvertent closure of a third-party valve at the downstream pumping station and that its P-16001 pump in operation at the time had a low-flow shutdown which activated after valve was closed. Respondent noted that no adverse impacts or product releases resulted from the event and that it was discovered and reported by Sunoco R&M’s own personnel. Respondent further explained that it removed the P-16001 pump from service and began operating with a smaller pump which is not capable of exceeding the MOP on Line 59. For these reasons, Respondent requested that PHMSA consider eliminating the proposed penalty.2 With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any overpressure event has the potential to impact safety because normal pressure levels have been exceeded. Respondent is correct that fortunately no product releases resulted from the event, but this was taken into consideration when the proposed penalty amount was determined and would have been higher had a release been involved. While a third-party’s equipment was involved, Respondent is culpable for the violation as pipeline operators are obligated to control the pressure in the lines they operate. I acknowledge the corrective action taken by Respondent following the event to begin using a pump with more appropriate capacity for the application, but this does not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the regulation prior to the event. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $32,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b). Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Final Order. Payment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case), made payable to “U.S. Department of Transportation,” to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ- 341), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) also permit payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions 2 Response letter dated October 19, 2009.#

320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf, page 54 are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $32,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(d) (Item 2), Respondent has completed the installation of cathodic protection systems on two of the tanks and has taken the third out of service. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. In addition, Respondent no longer operates the pipeline facilities that were the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order. The current operator, Toledo Refining Company, LLC, is hereby provided with a copy of the Order and requested to operate the facilities in question in accordance with its terms. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.#

320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf, page 65 The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#