# SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

420055011_Final Order_11152005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055011/420055011_Final%20Order_11152005.pdf

Final 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

420055011_Final Order_11152005.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transponatlon
Pipeline and
Hazardous Mahrlals Safety
Adminbttratlon
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
NOV 1 5 2005
Mr. P. Steve Broker
Vice President, Western Area
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
907 South Detroit
Tulsa, OK 74 120
Re: CPF No. 4-2005-501 1
Dear Mr. Broker:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in
the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of
$1 1,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action
closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that
document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Sincerely,
'J'mes Reynolds
Pipeline compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
)
In the Matter of )
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.,
Respondent 1
)
1
1
1
CPF NO. 4-2005-501 1
FINAL ORDER
On April 5-9,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's East Texas Pipeline System and records. As a
result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter
dated February 24,2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated
49 C.F.R. 5 195.573(a)(l) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $1 1,000 for the alleged
violation.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 28,2005 (Response). Respondent did
not contest the facts alleged in the Notice, but offered an explanation and requested the alleged
violation be withdrawn or the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a
hearing, and therefore waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
Section 195.573(a)(l) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation requires that Respondent
conduct tests of a cathodic protection system at least once each calendar year, with intervals not
to exceed 15 months to determine whether the protection complies with applicable criteria
contained in NACE Standard RP0169-96. The Notice alleged Respondent failed to record
readings at Test Stations TS 5 1, TS 68, and TS 70 during calendar years 2001,2002 and 2003,
and TS 52 during calendar years 2002 and 2003.
In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that it did not perform the tests as alleged, but
contended that cathodic protection was nevertheless adequate in 2001,2002 and 2003. In its
Response and in an email to OPS dated April 22,2004, Respondent stated that four of the five
test stations identified in the Notice were not "critical" test points, and therefore tests at those
locations were not necessary. Respondent cited readings taken nearby and at "local lows"



2
(locations where readings are typically lower than surrounding areas) to suggest that levels at
the four missed noncritical locations were adequate. Respondent acknowledged that only one
"critical" test location was missed (TS 52), but stated that the location was likely to have been
adequate because casings at that location were traditionally at similar levels as the pipe, and were
tested in 2001 and 2003 and found adequate. Based on this explanation, Respondent contended
that it was in compliance with $ 195.573(a)(l).
Section 195.573(a)(l) requires that operators verify the adequacy of cathodic protection on
protected pipelines each calendar year. Failing to take readings at particular test stations for
consecutive years, without documenting an acceptable justification for not performing those
tests, prevents an operator fiom reaching a comprehensive, documented determination about the
adequacy of its cathodic protection. Respondent did not perform tests at the above-referenced
test locations for consecutive years. Although Respondent submitted in its Response an analysis
of historic readings taken during the subject time period, Respondent's comparative analysis was
perfonned after OPSYs 2004 inspection. The after-the-fact determination conducted by
Respondent did not meet the intent of the regulation, which required Respondent to determine at
the time the tests were required to be performed whether cathodic protection is adequate.
Respondent's analysis does not justify withdrawing the alleged violation because Respondent
failed to take readings at particular test stations for consecutive years and did not document at the
time the readings were expected to be performed any conclusive determination that tests were
not necessary at those locations for determining the adequacy of the cathodic protection system.
Accordingly, I find Respondent violated $ 195.573(a)(l).
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a 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. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $1 1,000 for violation of $ 195.573(a)(l).
49 U.S.C. $ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
Respondent requested that the civil penalty be reduced because the pipeline was adequately
protected between 2001 and 2003. Respondent explained that, although readings were missed at
five test stations during consecutive years, many of the test stations were not "critical" for
determining the adequacy of cathodic protection. Respondent M e r explained that some of the
missed readings should be extrapolated fiom readings taken nearby and at "local lows" to show
the line was under adequate protection.



3
Although cathodic protection levels may have been adequate when the readings were missed,
Respondent did not document a justified decision to forgo testing at the identified locations.
Therefore, Respondent failed to reach an acceptable determination about the adequacy of the
cathodic protection system. Inadequate cathodic protection can result in corrosion on the pipe,
which may cause a leak or rupture of the pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $1 1,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. $ 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the $1 1,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in 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
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 1 10 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 United
States District Court.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits
payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the
right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are
effective on receipt.
NOV 1 5 2005
Date Issued
~ s u a t e Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

Final Order Sunoco Pipeline LP CPF No 4-2005-5011.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
NOV 1 5 2005
Mr. P. Steve Broker
Vice President, Western Area
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
907 South Detroit
Tulsa, OK 74120
Re: CPF No. 4-2005-50 1 1
Dear Mr. Broker:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in
the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of
$11,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action
closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that
document under 49 C.F.R. 5 190.5.
Sincerely,
(!-@-& ames Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
In the Matter of 1
Sunoco Pipeline L.P., 1
1
1
1
Respondent 1
CPF NO. 4-2005-501 1
FINAL ORDER
On April 5-9,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 6 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's East Texas Pipeline System and records. As a
result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter
dated February 24,2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated
49 C.F.R. 5 195.573(a)(l) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $1 1,000 for the alleged
violation.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 28,2005 (Response). Respondent did
not contest the facts alleged in the Notice, but offered an explanation and requested the alleged
violation be withdrawn or the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a
hearing, and therefore waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
Section 195.573(a)(l) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation requires that Respondent
conduct tests of a cathodic protection system at least once each calendar year, with intervals not
to exceed 15 months to determine whether the protection complies with applicable criteria
contained in NACE Standard RP0169-96. The Notice alleged Respondent failed to record
readings at Test Stations TS 51, TS 68, and TS 70 during calendar years 2001,2002 and 2003,
and TS 52 during calendar years 2002 and 2003.
In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that it did not perform the tests as alleged, but
contended that cathodic protection was nevertheless adequate in 2001,2002 and 2003. In its
Response and in an email to OPS dated April 22,2004, Respondent stated that four of the five
test stations identified in the Notice were not "critical" test points, and therefore tests at those
locations were not necessary. Respondent cited readings taken nearby and at "local lows"



2
(locations where readings are typically lower than surrounding areas) to suggest that levels at
the four missed noncritical locations were adequate. Respondent acknowledged that only one
"critical" test location was missed (TS 52), but stated that the location was likely to have been
adequate because casings at that location were traditionally at similar levels as the pipe, and were
tested in 2001 and 2003 and found adequate. Based on this explanation, Respondent contended
that it was in compliance with 5 195.573(a)(l).
Section 195.573(a)(l) requires that operators verify the adequacy of cathodic protection on
protected pipelines each calendar year. Failing to take readings at particular test stations for
consecutive years, without documenting an acceptable justification for not performing those
tests, prevents an operator from reaching a comprehensive, documented determination about the
adequacy of its cathodic protection. Respondent did not perform tests at the above-referenced
test locations for consecutive years. Although Respondent submitted in its Response an analysis
of historic readings taken during the subject time period, Respondent's comparative analysis was
performed after OPS's 2004 inspection. The after-the-fact determination conducted by
Respondent did not meet the intent of the regulation, which required Respondent to determine at
the time the tests were required to be performed whether cathodic protection is adequate.
Respondent's analysis does not justify withdrawing the alleged violation because Respondent
failed to take readings at particular test stations for consecutive years and did not document at the
time the readings were expected to be performed any conclusive determination that tests were
not necessary at those locations for determining the adequacy of the cathodic protection system.
Accordingly, I find Respondent violated 5 195.573(a)(l).
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESShlENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is subject to a 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. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $1 1,000 for violation of 5 195.573(a)(l).
49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
Respondent requested that the civil penalty be reduced because the pipeline was adequately
protected between 2001 and 2003. Respondent explained that, although readings were missed at
five test stations during consecutive years, many of the test stations were not "critical" for
determining the adequacy of cathodic protection. Respondent further explained that some of the
missed readings should be extrapolated from readings taken nearby and at "local lows" to show
the line was under adequate protection.



3
Although cathodic protection levels may have been adequate when the readings were missed,
Respondent did not document a justified decision to forgo testing at the identified locations.
Therefore, Respondent failed to reach an acceptable determination about the adequacy of the
cathodic protection system. Inadequate cathodic protection can result in corrosion on the pipe,
which may cause a leak or rupture of the pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $1 1,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. 5 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ- 120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the $1 1,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5 3717,31 C.F.R. tj 901.9 and49 C.F.R. 5 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per m u m 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 United
States District Court.
Under 49 C.F.R. 5 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits
payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the
right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are
effective on receipt.
NOV 1 5 2005
Date Issued
~ s u a t e Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 18094