{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320105012","title":"MID - VALLEY PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-11-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.403(a)(1), 195.412(b), 195.452(h)(4), 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320105012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320105012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320105012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320105012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MID - VALLEY PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.403(a)(1),  195.412(b),  195.452(h)(4),  195.573(e). The case was opened on 2010-11-23 and is reported as closed as of 2012-08-30. Proposed civil penalty: $48,700. Assessed civil penalty: $48,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320105012_Final Order_08302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105012/320105012_Final%20Order_08302012.pdf\n\n320105012_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105012/320105012_Final%20Order_08302012_text.pdf\n\n320105012_NOPV PCP_11232010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105012/320105012_NOPV%20PCP_11232010.pdf\n\n320105012_NOPV PCP_11232010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105012/320105012_NOPV%20PCP_11232010_text.pdf\n\n320105012_Opr Response to NOPV-PCP_12202010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105012/320105012_Opr%20Response%20to%20NOPV-PCP_12202010.pdf\n\n320105012_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 30, 2012\nMr. Michael J. Hennigan\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSunoco Logistics Partners, LP\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nRe: CPF No. 3-2010-5012\nDear Mr. Hennigan:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $48,700. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated December 22, 2010. This enforcement action is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided 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. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. David A. Justin, Vice President, Operations, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP\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 Logistics Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2010-5012\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 22-26, July 20-31, and August 17-28, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Mid-Valley Pipeline Company in Texas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Tennessee,\nKentucky, Ohio, and Michigan. Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP (Sunoco or Respondent), owns a\ncontrolling interest in and operates the Mid-Valley Pipeline, consisting of approximately 1,100\nmiles of pipeline that transports crude oil from Longview, Texas, to various refiners in the\nMidwest. 1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Sunoco, by\nletter dated November 23, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $48,700 for the alleged violation. The warning items\nrequired no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face\nfuture potential enforcement action.\nSunoco responded to the Notice by letter December 20, 2010 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $48,700, as provided in\n49 C.F.R. § 190.209(a). Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to\nRespondent.\n1 See http://www.sunocologistics.com/ (last accessed August 28, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Sunoco did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) . . .\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b)….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by not correcting identified\ndeficiencies in corrosion control, as required by § 195.401(b). The latter regulation requires an\noperator to repair any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of the pipeline\nsystem within a reasonable time. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco had identified\ndeficiencies in corrosion control on a portion of its pipeline at the BP refinery in Toledo, Ohio,\nafter performing a close-interval survey in April 2006. Sunoco failed to remediate the\ndeficiencies identified at the BP refinery until July 2009, more than three years later.\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(e) by not correcting\nidentified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(a)(1) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nemergency response training to one of its employees in 2008;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\ncrossing under a navigable waterway, at intervals not exceeding five years.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect its pipeline\ncrossing under the Ohio River between May 2004 and August 2009, an interval\nlonger than five years; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(i)(C) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to repair\nimmediate repair conditions in a High Consequence Area prior to removing a\n\n\n\n3\ntemporary operating pressure reduction. Sunoco had allegedly identified two top-\nside dents with metal loss on its pipeline on August 7, 2006, and imposed a 20%\noperating pressure reduction in accordance with the requirements of its integrity\nmanagement plan and § 195.452(h)(4)(i). Sunoco allegedly later removed this\npressure restriction and returned the pipeline to the established maximum\noperating pressure on August 17, 2007, without first repairing the conditions.\nThough Sunoco removed the restriction, operating pressure records indicate that\nthe actual operating pressure in the pipeline did not exceed the temporary pressure\nrestriction.\nIn its Response, Sunoco did not contest these allegations. If OPS finds a violation of any of\nthese items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\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":7604}