{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420075002","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":"2007-02-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(2), 195.452(i)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420075002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b)(2),  195.452(i)(3). The case was opened on 2007-02-12 and is reported as closed as of 2009-06-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420075002_FinalOrder_06172009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075002/420075002_FinalOrder_06172009.pdf\n\n420075002_FinalOrder_06172009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075002/420075002_FinalOrder_06172009_text.pdf\n\n420075002_Operator Response to notice letter_03142007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075002/420075002_Operator%20Response%20to%20notice%20letter_03142007.pdf\n\n420075002_FinalOrder_06172009_text.pdf\n\nJUN 17 2009\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0046 9624]\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n1735 Market St / 29th Floor\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-5002\nDear Mr. Justin:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes\nservice of that document 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\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P., ) CPF No. 4-2007-5002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 1–4 and 15–17, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and the New\nYork Public Service Commission conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the integrity\nmanagement program (IMP) records and procedures of Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sunoco or\nRespondent) at its office in Honey Brook, Pennsylvania. Sunoco owns and operates pipeline\nfacilities that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, and other hazardous liquids and gas\nin Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Michigan, Ohio and Arkansas. As a result of\nthe inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated\nFebruary 12, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 14, 2007 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and agreed to implement the terms of the proposed\ncompliance order. Respondent submitted additional information concerning its corrective action\non September 27, 2007 and February 29, 2008. Respondent did not request a hearing, and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it had violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.452, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(2), which states:\n§ 195.452 – Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n\n\n\n2\n(a) Which pipelines are covered by this section? This section applies to each\nhazardous liquid pipeline and carbon dioxide pipeline that could affect a high\nconsequence area . . . . Covered pipelines are categorized as follows . . .\n(3) Category 3 includes pipelines constructed or converted after May 29,\n2001.\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline\nintegrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must . . .\n(2) Include in [its integrity management] program an identification of each\n[Category 3] pipeline or pipeline segment . . . not later than the date . . . the\npipeline begins operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to complete an analysis of high consequence areas\n(HCAs) for the Category 3 Wortham to Corsicana 24-inch pipeline prior to the date the pipeline\nbegan operation. The Notice also alleged that Respondent failed to include in its IMP a\nrequirement that HCA analysis be completed prior to placing newly-constructed pipelines into\nservice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(2) by failing to\ninclude in its IMP an identification of each Category 3 pipeline or pipeline segment no later than\nthe date the pipeline began operation.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(3), which\nstate:\n§ 195.452 – Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? . . . An\noperator must include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\nintegrity management program . . .\n(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the high\nconsequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section) . . . .\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect\nthe high consequence area?\n(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on its\npipeline system. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak detection\nmeans and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence area. An\noperator’s evaluation must, at least, consider, the following factors—length\nand size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the pipeline’s proximity to\nthe high consequence area, the swiftness of leak detection, location of nearest\nresponse personnel, leak history, and risk assessment results.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to perform an evaluation of leak detection capabilities\nfor its Western Area system and to make modifications as necessary to protect HCAs.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(3) by failing to\nevaluate the capability of its leak detection system and make modifications as necessary to\nprotect HCAs.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n3\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(2), (f)(6), and (i)(3). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquid by pipeline or who owns or\noperates a hazardous liquid pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under Chapter 601.\nThe Director, Southwest Region, OPS has indicated that Respondent has taken the following\nactions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nRespondent has amended its IMP to include procedures requiring HCA analysis be\ncompleted prior to placing newly constructed Category 3 pipelines into service.\nRespondent has evaluated its leak detection capabilities and used the detailed leak history\ndata to substantiate its HCA spill analysis. Respondent has also documented the\nresponsibilities and processes to be used to perform leak detection system evaluations in\nthe future to ensure consistent application of the evaluation process. In addition,\nRespondent has undertaken a project to put its Eastern and Western Areas on a common\nSCADA platform and to upgrade leak detection capabilities.\nRespondent maintained documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfilling this Compliance Order and has submitted the total cost to OPS.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, it is not\nnecessary to include the compliance terms in this Final Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8261}