MID - VALLEY PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF320105012_NOPV PCP_11232010.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF320105012_NOPV PCP_11232010_text.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF320105012_Opr Response to NOPV-PCP_12202010.pdf#

320105012_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAUGUST 30, 2012 Mr. Michael J. Hennigan President and Chief Executive Officer Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP 1818 Market Street, Suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: CPF No. 3-2010-5012 Dear Mr. Hennigan: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $48,700. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated December 22, 2010. This enforcement action is now 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. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS Mr. David A. Justin, Vice President, Operations, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320105012_Final Order_08302012_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 Logistics Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2010-5012 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER On June 22-26, July 20-31, and August 17-28, 2009, 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 Mid-Valley Pipeline Company in Texas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan. Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP (Sunoco or Respondent), owns a controlling interest in and operates the Mid-Valley Pipeline, consisting of approximately 1,100 miles of pipeline that transports crude oil from Longview, Texas, to various refiners in the Midwest. 1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Sunoco, by letter dated November 23, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $48,700 for the alleged violation. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face future potential enforcement action. Sunoco responded to the Notice by letter December 20, 2010 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $48,700, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.209(a). Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent. 1 See http://www.sunocologistics.com/ (last accessed August 28, 2012).#

320105012_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 32 FINDING OF VIOLATION In its Response, Sunoco did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states in relevant part: § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (a) . . . (e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b)…. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by not correcting identified deficiencies in corrosion control, as required by § 195.401(b). The latter regulation requires an operator to repair any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of the pipeline system within a reasonable time. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco had identified deficiencies in corrosion control on a portion of its pipeline at the BP refinery in Toledo, Ohio, after performing a close-interval survey in April 2006. Sunoco failed to remediate the deficiencies identified at the BP refinery until July 2009, more than three years later. 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(e) by not correcting identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. WARNING ITEMS With respect to Items 1, 2, and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for: 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(a)(1) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide emergency response training to one of its employees in 2008; 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway, at intervals not exceeding five years. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect its pipeline crossing under the Ohio River between May 2004 and August 2009, an interval longer than five years; and 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(i)(C) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to repair immediate repair conditions in a High Consequence Area prior to removing a#

320105012_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 43 temporary operating pressure reduction. Sunoco had allegedly identified two top- side dents with metal loss on its pipeline on August 7, 2006, and imposed a 20% operating pressure reduction in accordance with the requirements of its integrity management plan and § 195.452(h)(4)(i). Sunoco allegedly later removed this pressure restriction and returned the pipeline to the established maximum operating pressure on August 17, 2007, without first repairing the conditions. Though Sunoco removed the restriction, operating pressure records indicate that the actual operating pressure in the pipeline did not exceed the temporary pressure restriction. In its Response, Sunoco did not contest these allegations. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. 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#