{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420055011","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":"2005-02-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.573(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420055011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192,  195.573(a)(1). The case was opened on 2005-02-24 and is reported as closed as of 2006-11-02. Proposed civil penalty: $11,000. Assessed civil penalty: $11,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420055011_Final Order_11152005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055011/420055011_Final%20Order_11152005.pdf\n\nFinal Order Sunoco Pipeline LP CPF No 4-2005-5011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055011/Final%20Order%20Sunoco%20Pipeline%20LP%20CPF%20No%204-2005-5011.pdf\n\n420055011_Final Order_11152005.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transponatlon\nPipeline and\nHazardous Mahrlals Safety\nAdminbttratlon\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nNOV 1 5 2005\nMr. P. Steve Broker\nVice President, Western Area\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n907 South Detroit\nTulsa, OK 74 120\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-501 1\nDear Mr. Broker:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$1 1,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSincerely,\n'J'mes Reynolds\nPipeline compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n)\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.,\nRespondent 1\n)\n1\n1\n1\nCPF NO. 4-2005-501 1\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 5-9,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's East Texas Pipeline System and records. As a\nresult of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated February 24,2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated\n49 C.F.R. 5 195.573(a)(l) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $1 1,000 for the alleged\nviolation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 28,2005 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the facts alleged in the Notice, but offered an explanation and requested the alleged\nviolation be withdrawn or the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a\nhearing, and therefore waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nSection 195.573(a)(l) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation requires that Respondent\nconduct tests of a cathodic protection system at least once each calendar year, with intervals not\nto exceed 15 months to determine whether the protection complies with applicable criteria\ncontained in NACE Standard RP0169-96. The Notice alleged Respondent failed to record\nreadings at Test Stations TS 5 1, TS 68, and TS 70 during calendar years 2001,2002 and 2003,\nand TS 52 during calendar years 2002 and 2003.\nIn its Response, Respondent acknowledged that it did not perform the tests as alleged, but\ncontended that cathodic protection was nevertheless adequate in 2001,2002 and 2003. In its\nResponse and in an email to OPS dated April 22,2004, Respondent stated that four of the five\ntest stations identified in the Notice were not \"critical\" test points, and therefore tests at those\nlocations were not necessary. Respondent cited readings taken nearby and at \"local lows\"\n\n\n\n2\n(locations where readings are typically lower than surrounding areas) to suggest that levels at\nthe four missed noncritical locations were adequate. Respondent acknowledged that only one\n\"critical\" test location was missed (TS 52), but stated that the location was likely to have been\nadequate because casings at that location were traditionally at similar levels as the pipe, and were\ntested in 2001 and 2003 and found adequate. Based on this explanation, Respondent contended\nthat it was in compliance with $ 195.573(a)(l).\nSection 195.573(a)(l) requires that operators verify the adequacy of cathodic protection on\nprotected pipelines each calendar year. Failing to take readings at particular test stations for\nconsecutive years, without documenting an acceptable justification for not performing those\ntests, prevents an operator fiom reaching a comprehensive, documented determination about the\nadequacy of its cathodic protection. Respondent did not perform tests at the above-referenced\ntest locations for consecutive years. Although Respondent submitted in its Response an analysis\nof historic readings taken during the subject time period, Respondent's comparative analysis was\nperfonned after OPSYs 2004 inspection. The after-the-fact determination conducted by\nRespondent did not meet the intent of the regulation, which required Respondent to determine at\nthe time the tests were required to be performed whether cathodic protection is adequate.\nRespondent's analysis does not justify withdrawing the alleged violation because Respondent\nfailed to take readings at particular test stations for consecutive years and did not document at the\ntime the readings were expected to be performed any conclusive determination that tests were\nnot necessary at those locations for determining the adequacy of the cathodic protection system.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated $ 195.573(a)(l).\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $1 1,000 for violation of $ 195.573(a)(l).\n49 U.S.C. $ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nRespondent requested that the civil penalty be reduced because the pipeline was adequately\nprotected between 2001 and 2003. Respondent explained that, although readings were missed at\nfive test stations during consecutive years, many of the test stations were not \"critical\" for\ndetermining the adequacy of cathodic protection. Respondent M e r explained that some of the\nmissed readings should be extrapolated fiom readings taken nearby and at \"local lows\" to show\nthe line was under adequate protection.\n\n\n\n3\nAlthough cathodic protection levels may have been adequate when the readings were missed,\nRespondent did not document a justified decision to forgo testing at the identified locations.\nTherefore, Respondent failed to reach an acceptable determination about the adequacy of the\ncathodic protection system. Inadequate cathodic protection can result in corrosion on the pipe,\nwhich may cause a leak or rupture of the pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $1 1,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. $ 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $1 1,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 3 1 U.S.C. $37 17,3 1 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 1 10 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 United\nStates District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nNOV 1 5 2005\nDate Issued\n~ s u a t e Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\nFinal Order Sunoco Pipeline LP CPF No 4-2005-5011.pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nNOV 1 5 2005\nMr. P. Steve Broker\nVice President, Western Area\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n907 South Detroit\nTulsa, OK 74120\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-50 1 1\nDear Mr. Broker:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$11,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C.F.R. 5 190.5.\nSincerely,\n(!-@-& ames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of 1\nSunoco Pipeline L.P., 1\n1\n1\n1\nRespondent 1\nCPF NO. 4-2005-501 1\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 5-9,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 6 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's East Texas Pipeline System and records. As a\nresult of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated February 24,2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated\n49 C.F.R. 5 195.573(a)(l) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $1 1,000 for the alleged\nviolation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 28,2005 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the facts alleged in the Notice, but offered an explanation and requested the alleged\nviolation be withdrawn or the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a\nhearing, and therefore waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nSection 195.573(a)(l) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation requires that Respondent\nconduct tests of a cathodic protection system at least once each calendar year, with intervals not\nto exceed 15 months to determine whether the protection complies with applicable criteria\ncontained in NACE Standard RP0169-96. The Notice alleged Respondent failed to record\nreadings at Test Stations TS 51, TS 68, and TS 70 during calendar years 2001,2002 and 2003,\nand TS 52 during calendar years 2002 and 2003.\nIn its Response, Respondent acknowledged that it did not perform the tests as alleged, but\ncontended that cathodic protection was nevertheless adequate in 2001,2002 and 2003. In its\nResponse and in an email to OPS dated April 22,2004, Respondent stated that four of the five\ntest stations identified in the Notice were not \"critical\" test points, and therefore tests at those\nlocations were not necessary. Respondent cited readings taken nearby and at \"local lows\"\n\n\n\n2\n(locations where readings are typically lower than surrounding areas) to suggest that levels at\nthe four missed noncritical locations were adequate. Respondent acknowledged that only one\n\"critical\" test location was missed (TS 52), but stated that the location was likely to have been\nadequate because casings at that location were traditionally at similar levels as the pipe, and were\ntested in 2001 and 2003 and found adequate. Based on this explanation, Respondent contended\nthat it was in compliance with 5 195.573(a)(l).\nSection 195.573(a)(l) requires that operators verify the adequacy of cathodic protection on\nprotected pipelines each calendar year. Failing to take readings at particular test stations for\nconsecutive years, without documenting an acceptable justification for not performing those\ntests, prevents an operator from reaching a comprehensive, documented determination about the\nadequacy of its cathodic protection. Respondent did not perform tests at the above-referenced\ntest locations for consecutive years. Although Respondent submitted in its Response an analysis\nof historic readings taken during the subject time period, Respondent's comparative analysis was\nperformed after OPS's 2004 inspection. The after-the-fact determination conducted by\nRespondent did not meet the intent of the regulation, which required Respondent to determine at\nthe time the tests were required to be performed whether cathodic protection is adequate.\nRespondent's analysis does not justify withdrawing the alleged violation because Respondent\nfailed to take readings at particular test stations for consecutive years and did not document at the\ntime the readings were expected to be performed any conclusive determination that tests were\nnot necessary at those locations for determining the adequacy of the cathodic protection system.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated 5 195.573(a)(l).\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESShlENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $1 1,000 for violation of 5 195.573(a)(l).\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nRespondent requested that the civil penalty be reduced because the pipeline was adequately\nprotected between 2001 and 2003. Respondent explained that, although readings were missed at\nfive test stations during consecutive years, many of the test stations were not \"critical\" for\ndetermining the adequacy of cathodic protection. Respondent further explained that some of the\nmissed readings should be extrapolated from readings taken nearby and at \"local lows\" to show\nthe line was under adequate protection.\n\n\n\n3\nAlthough cathodic protection levels may have been adequate when the readings were missed,\nRespondent did not document a justified decision to forgo testing at the identified locations.\nTherefore, Respondent failed to reach an acceptable determination about the adequacy of the\ncathodic protection system. Inadequate cathodic protection can result in corrosion on the pipe,\nwhich may cause a leak or rupture of the pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $1 1,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. 5 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ- 120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $1 1,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5 3717,31 C.F.R. tj 901.9 and49 C.F.R. 5 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per m u m 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 United\nStates District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. 5 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nNOV 1 5 2005\nDate Issued\n~ s u a t e Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":18094}