{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420075007M","title":"SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-03-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(c)(1)(i), 195.452(f)(1), 195.452(h)(4)(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075007m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075007m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075007m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420075007M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(c)(1)(i),  195.452(f)(1),  195.452(h)(4)(i). The case was opened on 2007-03-07 and is reported as closed as of 2010-01-11. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420075007M_Operator_Response_04272007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075007M/420075007M_Operator_Response_04272007.pdf\n\n420075007M_Order Directing Amendment_12012009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075007M/420075007M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_12012009.pdf\n\n420075007M_Order Directing Amendment_12012009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075007M/420075007M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_12012009_text.pdf\n\n420075007M_Order Directing Amendment_12012009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 01 2009\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n525 Fritztown Road\nSinking Springs, PA 19608\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-5007M\nDear Mr. Justin:\nEnclosed is the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a\nfinding of inadequate procedures and requires that Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. amend its written\nintegrity management program procedures. When the terms of the Order are completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your\nreceipt of the Order Directing Amendment constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5128]\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. 4-2007-5007M\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nOn August 1–4 and 15–17, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and\nthe New York State Public Service Commission conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection\nof integrity management program procedures and records of Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sunoco or\nRespondent) at the company’s offices in Honey Brook, Pennsylvania. Sunoco operates gas and\nhazardous liquid pipelines in several states, including New Jersey, New York, Ohio,\nPennsylvania, and Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 7, 2007, a Notice of Amendment (NOA). The NOA alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent’s integrity management program and proposed to require the\ncompany to revise the procedures. Respondent responded to the NOA by submitting amended\nprocedures to the Director through several submissions between the dates of April 27 and\nDecember 21, 2007.\nThe Director has reviewed the amended procedures submitted by Respondent. Based on the\nresult of this review, I find that Respondent’s amendments adequately address Items 1A, 1B, 2A,\n2B, 2C, and 3B in the NOA. For the reasons discussed below, I find the amendments do not\nadequately address Item 3A.\nItem 3A: The NOA alleged that Respondent’s integrity management program procedures were\ninadequate with respect to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h). That regulation states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues? —\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address\nall anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity\n\n\n\n2\nassessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an\noperator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that\ncould reduce a pipeline's integrity . . . .\n(2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an\noperator has adequate information about the condition to determine that\nthe condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An\noperator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that\ndetermination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period\nis impracticable . . . .\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation —(i) Immediate\nrepair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule must\nprovide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator\nmust temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until\nthe operator completes the repair of these conditions . . . .\nThe NOA alleged that Sunoco’s procedures were inadequate to assure public safety and\ncompliance with § 195.452(h) because they failed to require discovery of immediate repair\nconditions when adequate information about the conditions were available. The NOA also\nalleged that the procedures were inadequate because they did not require Sunoco to promptly\nobtain sufficient information about immediate repair conditions. As alleged in the NOA, Sunoco\ntypically discovered immediate repair conditions within a week of receiving a vendor’s report;\nbut the operator’s procedures for reviewing assessment results permitted discovery times to be\ndelayed up to three weeks after receiving the report.\nIn its letter dated April 27, 2007 (Response), Respondent disagreed with the characterization in\nthe NOA that the company’s procedures allowed the discovery of conditions to be “delayed.”\nRespondent contended, rather, its procedures mandate a discovery deadline. Respondent noted\nfurther that it had developed draft changes to its Technical Procedure PR-11-0036, ILI\nEvaluation, Investigation, & Documentation, to provide that “reviews for immediate repair\nanomalies will be done expeditiously, but in no case will discovery occur later than 3 weeks after\nassessment reports are data quality control and data integration. Respondent maintained that\nuntil technology is available for more automated comparisons of new assessment results with\npast results and repairs, Sunoco will continue to evaluate assessment reports expeditiously, but\nno later than fifteen business days, or three weeks, after receiving vendor reports in order to\nproperly evaluate the assessment results and declare discovery.\nreceiving applicable vendor reports.”1 Respondent explained the two critical steps in evaluating\nSection § 195.452(h) requires Respondent to have procedures to ensure that sufficient\ninformation is promptly obtained about pipeline conditions to determine if a condition requires\nthe operator to immediately reduce operating pressure until the condition is repaired (an\nimmediate repair condition). Typically, operators receive a vendor report following an integrity\nassessment by an internal inspection device. That report includes information about conditions\n1 Response at 4 (emphasis in original).\n\n\n\n3\non the pipeline such as the percentage of metal loss at anomalies caused by corrosion or the\nmagnitude of dent-type deformations. PHMSA has found the type of information contained in a\nvendor report is generally sufficient to enable the operator to determine whether there are\nimmediate repair conditions on the pipeline.\n“discovery” of the immediate repair condition. Therefore, an operator will normally have\nsufficient information to enable discovery of an immediate repair condition upon receipt of the\nvendor’s report.\n2 That determination is referred to as the operator’s\nWhile there may be specific instances when discovery is delayed in order for an operator to\ngather and integrate additional information from other sources, an operator’s procedures must\nstill provide for the prompt discovery of immediate repair conditions for public safety and to\nensure compliance with § 195.452(h). An operator’s procedures are inadequate if the procedures\ndo not provide for the discovery of immediate repair conditions promptly after receiving a\nvendor’s report.\nAlthough Respondent’s procedures state that immediate repair conditions must be discovered\n“expeditiously,” the procedures allow fifteen business days or three weeks to discover an\nimmediate repair condition after the operator receives the vendor’s report. PHMSA finds that it\nshould normally take only three to five business days (depending on an operator’s unique\noperating processes) to discover immediate repair conditions after receipt of a vendor’s report.\nAccordingly, after reviewing the evidence, I find Respondent’s integrity management program\nprocedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system in accordance with\n§ 195.452(h).\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, Respondent is ordered to make the\nfollowing revisions to its integrity management program procedures. Respondent must—\n1. Modify the integrity management procedures to require prompt discovery of\nimmediate repair conditions when adequate information is available and ensure that\nsufficient information about a condition is promptly obtained.\n2. Submit the amended procedures to the Director within 30 days following receipt of\nthis Order Directing Amendment.\nWith respect to the submission of amended procedures, the Director may notify Respondent if\nany or all of the procedures have been amended satisfactorily. If further modification is\nnecessary, the Director may require Respondent to modify the submission to cure the\ndeficiencies. If the Director finds deficiencies and orders further modification, Respondent must\nproceed to take all action to correct its procedures to comply with the Director’s order.\nRespondent must correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit\nthe procedures for review.\n2 In the Matter of Magellan Pipeline Company, CPF No. 4-2004-5006, Final Order (Aug. 18, 2005).\n\n\n\n4\nIf a resubmitted item is disapproved in whole or in part, the Director may again require\nRespondent to correct the deficiencies in accordance with the foregoing procedure, or the\nDirector may otherwise proceed to enforce the terms of this Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":10992}