{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420075040","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":"2007-11-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.310(a), 195.402(a), 195.404, 195.410(a), 195.412(a), 195.420, 195.428(a), 195.432(b), 195.434, 195.436, 195.571, 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075040.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075040.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075040","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420075040","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.310(a),  195.402(a),  195.404,  195.410(a),  195.412(a),  195.420,  195.428(a),  195.432(b),  195.434,  195.436,  195.571,  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2007-11-13 and is reported as closed as of 2012-04-16. Proposed civil penalty: $119,000. Assessed civil penalty: $119,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420075040_Closure_04162012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_Closure_04162012.pdf\n\n420075040_Closure_04162012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_Closure_04162012_text.pdf\n\n420075040_Final Order_12162010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_Final%20Order_12162010.pdf\n\n420075040_Final Order_12162010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_Final%20Order_12162010_text.pdf\n\n420075040_nopvpcppco_11132007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_nopvpcppco_11132007.pdf\n\n420075040_nopvpcppco_11132007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_nopvpcppco_11132007_text.pdf\n\n420075040_Operator_Response_05222009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075040/420075040_Operator_Response_05222009.pdf\n\n420075040_Closure_04162012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 16, 2012\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nCPF 4-2007-5040\nDear Mr. Justin:\nOn December 16, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration issued a Final\nOrder to Sunoco Pipelines, L.P. in the referenced case. Based on review of the documentation\nyou provided and confirmation that the administrative civil penalty has been paid, it has been\ndetermined that Sunoco has complied with the terms and conditions of the Final Order.\nAccordingly, PHMSA now considers this case closed and no further action is contemplated with\nrespect to the matters involved in this case.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n\n420075040_Final Order_12162010_text.pdf\n\nDEC 16 2010\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nRE: CPF No. 4-2007-5040\nDear Mr. Justin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $119,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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\ncc: Mr. Rod M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED_[7005 1160 0001 0041 0848]\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. 4-2007-5040\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom March 13 through September 28, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Sunoco\nPipeline L.P. (Sunoco or Respondent), in Oklahoma and Texas. Sunoco, a subsidiary of Sunoco\nLogistics Partners L.P., operates approximately 4,500 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines\ntransporting crude oil, refined petroleum products, and natural gas liquids in Texas,\nPennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and several other states.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 13, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,\nproposed a civil penalty of $119,000 for the alleged violations, and proposed that Respondent be\nordered to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent replied to the Notice by requesting a hearing in a letter to PHMSA dated February 4,\n2008. Sunoco then submitted a written response to the allegations dated May 22, 2009, in which\nthe company contested several of the allegations of violation and argued that the civil penalties\nshould be eliminated or reduced (Response). By e-mail to PHMSA dated July 16, 2009, the\ncompany withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby waiving its right to a hearing and\nauthorizing the entry of this Final Order.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.310 Records.\n(a) A record must be made of each pressure test required by this\nsubpart, and the record of the latest test must be retained as long as the\nfacility tested is in use.\nThe Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to retain a record of the latest pressure tests of its\npipelines. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA asked to review such records when it\ninspected Sunoco’s facilities in Corsicana, Texas, and that at that time, the company stated that\nmost of these records were located in Sugar Land, Texas. The Notice alleged that when PHMSA\nsubsequently visited Sunoco’s Sugar Land, Texas office, the company stated that the records had\nbeen sent away to be scanned, and alleged further that the company never provided the records to\nPHMSA. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Respondent’s failure to\nproduce complete records during or following PHMSA’s inspections supports the conclusion\nthat the company did not retain these records.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 195.310(a)\nby failing to retain a record of the latest pressure test for its pipelines.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) Location and identification of [its] pipeline facilities . . . .\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline . . . .\n(4) The diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.\n(b) . . . .\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods\nspecified:\n(1) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe\nshall be maintained for the useful life of the pipe.\n(2) The date, location, and description of each repair made to parts of\nthe pipeline system other than pipe shall be maintained for at least 1 year.\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall\nbe maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.404 by failing to maintain: (1) current maps\nof its pipeline system; (2) documentation on how the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of\neach pipeline was calculated; (3) documentation providing data on pipe specifications; and (4)\nrecords of each pipeline’s repair history.\nRespondent did not contest most of the allegations and provided information on the steps it had\ntaken to satisfy the proposed compliance order. However, Respondent disagreed with the\nstatement in the Violation Report that the alignment sheets or system maps examined during the\n\n\n\n3\ncontended that the alignment sheets had been periodically updated over the history of the\npipeline and that the documents demonstrating compliance with the requirements of § 195.404\nwere available at the time of the inspection.\nPHMSA inspection were the “original alignment sheets” that had not been updated.1 Sunoco\nThe evidence in the record demonstrates that Sunoco presented alignment sheets to OPS\nrepresentatives during the PHMSA inspection, that such alignment sheets were being used by\nSunoco operations personnel, and that they had not been updated to reflect recent system\nchanges.2\nRespondent also contended that certain documentation regarding pipe specifications was\navailable at the time of the PHMSA inspection. However, it is apparent from the record that\nSunoco did not provide this documentation to PHMSA during the inspection. Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations regarding its failure to maintain records of MOP and pipeline repairs.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 195.404 by failing to\nmaintain current maps of its pipeline systems, records of the MOP of each pipeline, records of\npipe specifications of the system, and pipeline repair records.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in\naccordance with the following:\n(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each\nrailroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the remainder of each\nburied line so that its location is accurately known.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to place line markers in sufficient number over a\nburied pipeline in the Abilene, Texas area. In its Response, Sunoco did not contest this\nallegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated § 195.410(a) by failing to place\nsufficient line markers over a buried pipeline.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report at 6 (Nov. 13, 2007) (Violation Report).\n2 Violation Report at 6.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect surface conditions on or adjacent to certain\npipeline rights-of-way at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nSunoco could not provide records of aerial patrols of its pipelines in the Corsicana area for 2005\nand 2006.\nIn its Response, Sunoco argued that it had carried out the required inspections, but acknowledged\nthat it lacked records for a number of inspections. Sunoco argued that it could substantiate the\ninspections for which it lacked records with invoices and “aerial investigation reports.\n”\nHowever, Sunoco submitted neither these invoices nor aerial investigation reports. Instead,\nRespondent submitted lists of dates on which it claimed patrols were conducted on the West\nTexas Gulf and Corsicana to Wichita Falls pipelines in 2005 and 2006, with notations indicating\npatrols that can allegedly be substantiated by invoices. Respondent maintained that these lists\nshow that it conducted nearly twice as many aerial patrols as required by the regulations.\nSection 195.412(a) requires Sunoco to inspect surface conditions along its rights-of-way at\ndesignated intervals. Respondent is further required to maintain records of each right-of-way\ninspection pursuant to § 195.404(c)(3). Merely providing lists of dates and references to\ninvoices does not demonstrate that the required inspections took place, because they do not\ninclude the precise rights-of-way inspected, observations made by the individual performing the\ninspection, recommendations regarding necessary follow-up activities, or any information about\nfollow-up actions that were performed. Respondent has not provided any actual inspection\nrecords or other such documentation or records to demonstrate that the company performed the\ninspections as required in the regulation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 195.412(a)\nby failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way at least\nevery three weeks.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the\nsafe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to properly inspect each mainline valve. Sunoco’s\nprocedures provide that, as part of regular mainline valve inspections, each valve must be\npartially operated. The Notice alleged that during certain valve inspections, some mainline\nvalves could not be partially operated to determine that they were functioning properly due to the\nscheduling of commodity movements, and that Sunoco never completed follow-up inspections of\nthose valves.\nIn its Response, Sunoco did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated § 195.420 by failing to inspect its pipeline valves properly.\n\n\n\n5\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection\nsystems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear . . . inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve,\npressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,\nand is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect and test certain overfill protection devices at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Sunoco inspected the overfill protection devices in September 2005, but that the\noperator could not provide records of inspections of the devices during the 15-month period\npreceding that inspection.\nIn its Response, Sunoco did not contest the allegation that it could not provide the records of\nprior inspections, but it objected to the proposed finding of violation because the company\nbecame the operator of the West Texas Gulf Pipeline on January 1, 2005, and the Corsicana to\nWichita Falls pipeline on August 1, 2005. Sunoco argued that it was not obligated to have\nrecords concerning inspections that occurred prior to its operation of the pipelines and explained\nthat it had made “all reasonable efforts” to obtain the records from the previous operator.\nSection 195.428(a) requires Sunoco to ensure that its overfill protection devices are inspected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. In order to demonstrate\nthat the inspections it performed in September 2005 were conducted within 15 months of the\nprevious inspections in compliance with § 195.428(a), Sunoco must have records demonstrating\nthe prior inspections occurred no earlier than June 2004.3 The fact that Sunoco took over\noperation of the facilities eight months or less before performing its own inspection of the\nfacilities, Sunoco is responsible for full compliance with each applicable pipeline safety\nregulation.\ndevices does not exempt Respondent from these requirements.4 As the operator the pipeline\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated § 195.428(a) by failing to demonstrate that it had\ninspected and tested each overfill protection device at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432, which states:\n3 Respondent is required to maintain records of each inspection, pursuant to § 195.404(c)(3), for at least 2 years.\n4 I reject Respondent’s rationale that compliance with inspection intervals and record keeping requirements is\nsomehow waived by a change in ownership or operating responsibility. I further note there is no provision in the\nsafety regulations permitting new operators to make mere assumptions about when past inspections occurred simply\nbecause they did not obtain from the prior operator records required to be kept by regulation.\n\n\n\n6\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions\nprevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3) . . . .\n(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in\nparagraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the\noperator's last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect the physical integrity of certain breakout\ntanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653 (API 653).5 Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Sunoco failed to perform a monthly inspection of Corsicana breakout tanks 2660, 2661, and\n2692 in January 2006 and in any months prior to September 2005, as evidenced by the absence\nRespondent failed to inspect several out-of-service breakout tanks, namely Corsicana tanks 2601,\n2603, 2724, Wortham tank 42, and Ringold tank 2720.\nof any records demonstrating such inspections were performed.6 The Notice further alleged that\nIn addition, the Notice alleged that those monthly inspections that Respondent did perform failed\nto identify issues that PHMSA observed during its field inspection, such as vegetation growth\nbetween steel tank rims and ring walls and settling around the foundation. Also, the Notice\nalleged that Sunoco had failed to act on many of its own recommendations for follow-up made as\na result of its tank inspections, such as those regarding foundation problems, erosion, and seeps\nor leaks. The evidence in the record included a spreadsheet listing the Corsicana breakout tanks,\ninspection recommendations for certain tanks, and monthly tank inspection reports.\nIn its Response, Sunoco contested the allegation that it failed to comply with § 195.432. In\nregard to the allegation that the company failed to conduct monthly inspections of in-service\nbreakout tanks, the company contended that it could not locate monthly tank inspection records\nalso explained that it became the operator of the West Texas Gulf Pipeline on January 1, 2005,\nand of the Corsicana to Wichita Falls 16-inch pipeline on August 1, 2005, and that it is not\nunreasonable for it to take a year to implement Sunoco’s programs. Sunoco also explained that\nthe company did not receive any monthly inspection records from the previous operator for the\nperiod prior to Sunoco becoming operator. Therefore, Sunoco did not have any records for the\nmonths prior to September 2005.\nfor January 2006 “due to problems with administrative help responsible for filing.”7 Respondent\n5 American Petroleum Institute Standard 653, “Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction,”\nincorporated by reference at 49 C.F.R. § 195.3.\n6 Inspection intervals are provided in § 6 of API 653. Section 6.3.1.2 of API 654 specifies that routine in-service\ninspections shall be conducted at intervals not exceeding one month. Formal internal inspections are to be\nconducted at intervals calculated based on corrosion rate, but at least at intervals not exceeding 20 years. If the\ncorrosion rate is not known, however, the interval for internal inspections shall not exceed 10 years.\n7 Response at 10.\n\n\n\n7\nSunoco is required by regulation to perform tank inspections at the intervals established by\nSection 6.3.1.2 of API 654, including monthly in-service inspections and more in-depth out-of-\nservice inspections at intervals calculated based on corrosion rate, but ranging from 10 to 20\nyears. Sunoco is also required to keep a record of each tank inspection for at least 2 years or\nuntil the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.\ninspection in mid-2006, Sunoco did not have inspection records to demonstrate that certain\nmonthly tank inspections had been performed for Corsicana breakout tanks 2660, 2661, and\n2692. The absence of inspection records supports a finding that the company failed to perform\nin-service tank inspections during the time Sunoco had operational control over the subject\nbreakout tanks.\n8 At the time of the PHMSA\nIn regard to the inspection of certain out-of-service breakout tanks, Sunoco contended that for\nCorsicana tanks 2601 and 2603, the company had no record of prior inspections from the\nprevious operator, and that therefore § 195.432(d) permitted Sunoco to use a 20-year inspection\ninterval running from May 3, 1999, because Sunoco assumed inspections had never been\nperformed by the previous operator. For Corsicana tank 2724, Ringold tank 2720, and Wortham\ntank 42, Sunoco indicated that it had inspection records from the prior operator and committed to\n“complete future inspections at the required interval beginning with the date that we became\noperator.”9\nRespondent’s conduct is not consistent with § 195.432 in several respects. First, Sunoco used\nthe latest possible interval date of May 3, 1999, merely because the company did not receive\ninspection records from the previous operator. Section 195.432(d) provides that the intervals for\ninspection “begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last recorded date of the inspection,\nwhichever is earlier.”10 The regulation is a minimum safety standard to ensure the integrity of\nbreakout tanks, and in some situations operators may find the need to inspect tanks at shorter\nintervals. The records that Sunoco acquired from the previous operator indicated that the\nprevious operator had an inspection program for breakout tanks, making it probable that the\nsubject tanks were previously inspected. Therefore, Sunoco was required to identify the dates of\nthe previous inspections to calculate the proper inspection interval in accordance with § 195.432.\nIf Respondent truly could not determine the last recorded date of inspection, the company should\nhave performed an inspection on the tanks upon acquisition to ensure compliance with the\nregulation. Second, with regard to Corsicana tank 2724, Ringold tank 2720, and Wortham tank\n42, for which Sunoco had prior inspection records, Sunoco committed in its Response to\ncomplete future inspections at intervals “beginning with the date that [Sunoco] became\nbe based on prior inspection dates, not the date operating responsibility shifted to Sunoco.\noperator.”11 This is also inconsistent with § 195.432, because the regulation requires intervals to\nIn its Response, Sunoco did not address the allegations in the Notice that it had failed to identify\ncertain issues during inspections, such as vegetation growth and settling around foundation, or\nthat it had failed to act on recommendations resulting from integrity inspections.\n8 § 195.404(c)(3).\n9 Response at 11.\n10 § 195.432(d) (emphasis added).\n11 Response at 11.\n\n\n\n8\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432 by failing to inspect the physical integrity of certain breakout tanks according to API\n653.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.434, which states:\n§ 195.434 Signs.\nEach operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each\npumping station and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name\nof the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the\noperator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain signs visible to the public around the\nColorado City, Texas breakout tank facility. In its Response, Sunoco did not contest the\nallegation, and provided information regarding corrective action taken to install new signs “even\nthough station signs had not been found lacking in previous PHMSA inspections.” Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.434 by\nfailing to maintain signs visible to the public around the Colorado City, Texas breakout tank\nfacility.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436, which states:\n§ 195.436 Security of facilities.\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and\nbreakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.436 by failing to provide protection from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry for the Colorado City, Texas breakout tank facility.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the facility was not protected because it had security fencing\nonly on one side of the facility, and hog wire fencing on the other three sides, which was\ninadequate to protect against vandalism and unauthorized entry.\nIn its Response, Sunoco contested the allegation, arguing that the level of security provided by\nthe existing fence was appropriate given the facility’s location in a rural area with no\ndocumented history of trespass or vandalism. While high-risk locations may certainly require\nadditional security measures, § 195.436 requires at a minimum that operators surround even low-\nrisk facilities with protection from unauthorized entry and vandalism, such as a security fence.12\nIn the present case, protection for Respondent’s breakout tank facility consisted of six-foot-high\nchain link fence with barbed wire on one side, but only a farm-type fence with no barbed wire on\nthe other sides, which did not provide sufficient protection from unauthorized entry.\n12 See, e.g., PHMSA Interpretation of § 195.436 (Aug. 13, 1980) (finding a tank farm in a rural area needs more\nthan just livestock fencing or hourly patrols) (available at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps); In the\nMatter of Jayhawk Pipeline, L.L.C., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2002-5021, 2003 WL 25429861 (Dec. 11, 2003)\n(rejecting the assertion that an operator may take lesser precautions for facilities located in isolated rural areas)\n(available at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n\n\n\n9\nIn its Response, Sunoco also contended that this issue had not been the subject of a previous\ncitation by PHMSA, and that PHMSA has historically issued only Warning Letters for\nallegations involving § 195.436. PHMSA has broad discretion in selecting appropriate\nenforcement tools, however, and may issue Warning Letters or Notices of Probable Violation\nwhen finding a probable violation during an inspection. PHMSA has, in fact, issued Notices of\nprecluded from taking enforcement action for a violation that was not identified during a\nprevious inspection.\nProbable Violation in the past for violations of § 195.436.13 Furthermore, PHMSA is not\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.436 by failing to provide protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry for the\nColorado City, Texas breakout tank facility.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE Standard RP\n0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to ensure that cathodic protection complied with\napplicable criteria in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE Standard RP 0169 (NACE RP0169).14\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to properly consider voltage (IR) drop when\nevaluating pipe-to-soil readings under the -850 mV criterion for determining the adequacy of\ncathodic protection. Furthermore, the Notice alleged that Sunoco could not demonstrate through\nany test or study that its cathodic protection met the alternative 100 mV criterion.\nIn its Response, Sunoco contested the allegation of violation and contended that it had\nadequately considered IR drop in evaluating the adequacy of cathodic protection. Sunoco\nacknowledged that it primarily used the -850 mV criterion, which is specified in paragraph 6.2 of\nNACE RP0169, but also indicated that it used the 100 mV depolarization criterion in certain\nlocations. Respondent listed data collection methods it used to consider IR drop, such as: close-\ninterval surveys on a five- to seven-year basis; depolarized potential surveys to establish baseline\ndata for the 100 mV depolarization criterion; in-line inspections at five-year maximum intervals\nto evaluate effectiveness of corrosion control; inspections of exposed coating and pipe surface\nfor external corrosion; IR-free readings at locations such as pipe risers, spans, and pipe\nexposures; and leak history. Respondent also submitted a table of close-interval survey and in-\nline inspection dates.\n13 See id.; see also In the Matter of Nustar Logistics, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2005-5048, 2009 WL 1211363\n(Mar. 11, 2009).\n14 NACE International Standard Recommended Practice 0169, “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or\nSubmerged Metallic Piping Systems,” incorporated by reference at § 195.3.\n\n\n\n10\nSection 195.571 specifies that cathodic protection must comply with one or more of the criteria\nestablished in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE RP 0169. Paragraph 6.2.2.1.1 of NACE RP0169\nestablishes one of the criteria as a negative potential of at least 850 mV with the cathodic\nprotection applied, but “[v]oltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte\nboundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.” Since\nSunoco primarily uses the -850 mV criterion, the company must consider IR drop for a valid\ninterpretation of this measurement.\nRespondent’s use of close-interval surveys and the use of “instant off” potentials in comparison\nto polarized potentials is an acceptable method to evaluate IR drop, provided that such\ninformation is then used to evaluate annual cathodic protection survey readings. This means that\nreadings with the current applied must be at least as negative as -850 mV plus the negative of the\nIR drop determined for each particular location. This methodology may not be used, however,\nfor those pipelines in which Respondent did not perform a recent close-interval survey, or for\npipelines acquired without any close-interval survey information.\nThe other methods that Respondent used to evaluate corrosion that had already taken place –such\nas in-line inspections, inspections of exposed pipe, and leak histories – are not considered\nsubstitutes for evaluating the adequacy of current cathodic protection readings. In addition, pipe-\nto-soil potentials taken at the pipe surface when a pipe is excavated have a high potential for\nerror, in part because the soil around the pipeline has been disturbed and may not provide a true\nreading of the polarized potentials when the pipe is normally covered with soil. Such readings\ndo not provide a reliable assessment of IR drop for use in evaluating the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection readings with current applied.\nFor those pipelines without a recent close interval survey with instant off readings, Sunoco has\nnot demonstrated that it properly considered IR drop in the cathodic protection readings in order\nto meet the -850 mV requirement. Respondent also has not submitted documentation\ndemonstrating compliance with the alternative 100 mV criterion, such as actual studies or\npolarization/depolarization measurements.\nTherefore, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571 by failing to properly consider IR drop to ensure that cathodic protection complied\nwith applicable criteria.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589 which states:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required\nby this subpart [subpart H, §§ 195.551–195.589] in sufficient detail to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. You must retain these records\nfor at least 5 years, except that records related to §§ 195.569, 195.573(a)\nand (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained for as long as the\npipeline remains in service.\n\n\n\n11\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.589 by failing to maintain records required to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures for the West Texas Gulf (26”) pipeline.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that, at the time of the inspection, Respondent could not provide\nrequired records of corrosion control inspections for the West Texas Gulf (26”) Pipeline.\nIn its Response, Sunoco denied the allegation. Respondent claimed that it obtained the required\nrecords from the previous operator of the pipeline, and attached a spreadsheet listing relevant\nrecords that Sunoco does and does not possess. Sunoco did not provide the actual records,\nhowever, and I do not find the spreadsheet submitted proves that such records exist or that\nRespondent indeed possesses them. Secondly, the spreadsheet itself indicates that Respondent is\nmissing a substantial number of records since January 2002, including all the records of\natmospheric corrosion inspections for 2004.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.589 by failing to maintain records of required corrosion control inspections with\nrespect to the West Texas Gulf (26”) pipeline.\nItem 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\nthat would corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect\nof the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take\nadequate steps to mitigate internal corrosion.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to investigate adequately the corrosive effect of the\nhazardous liquid transported in its pipelines. In its Response, Sunoco contested the allegation.\nRespondent stated that it commissioned an analysis of internal corrosion of the West Texas Gulf\nPipeline, and that this report, dated November 29, 2005, satisfied the requirements of\n§ 195.579(a).\nThe report cited by Respondent addressed corrosion only on mainline pipes, not on “dead-legs”\nor infrequently used pump station pipes. The evidence in the Violation Report indicates that two\nSunoco pipelines, neither of which is the West Texas Gulf Pipeline, have experienced leaks\ncaused by internal corrosion, and that neither leak occurred on a mainline pipe. One leak\noccurred on a “dead leg,” and another occurred on a lateral pipeline used for inputting trucked\nbarrels of crude oil. Particularly given Respondent’s history of leaks along such pipelines, the\nNovember 2005 study, which was limited to assessing corrosion on a single mainline pipeline,\nwas inadequate.\nThe Response also described Sunoco’s efforts to monitor internal corrosion on the specific\nlateral truck line that experienced a leak as well as its plan to identify and eliminate “dead-legs.”\nRespondent also stated that it has instituted a program to perform guided-wave scans on low-\nflow lines, and that it has attempted to ensure that low-flow lines are operated periodically to\nreduce the possibility of corrosion. Unfortunately, the company did not submit specific\ninformation, such as inspection records or written procedures, documenting its efforts to\ninvestigate the corrosive effect of hazardous liquid on non-mainline pipes. Respondent also did\n\n\n\n12\nnot indicate when these efforts began, nor did it explain whether its efforts to investigate\ncorrosion have extended across its entire system.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a) by\nfailing to investigate adequately the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid transported in its\npipeline system.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $119,000 for the violations of 49 C.F.R.\n§§ 195.412(a) (Item 5), 195.420 (Item 6), 195.428(a) (Item 7), 195.432 (Item 8), 195.436 (Item\n10), and 195.589 (Item 12).\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225,\nPHMSA must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the\nviolation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability;\nthe history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any\neffect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, PHMSA\nmay consider any ascertainable economic benefit gained from the violation and such other\nmatters as justice may require.\nRespondent has a substantial history of prior offenses. Respondent was the subject of seven final\norders containing findings of violation in the five years preceding the issuance of the Notice.\nThese prior offenses involved civil penalties totaling $407,200 as well as compliance orders.\nThus, Sunoco’s history of prior offenses provides no support for reducing the civil penalties in\nthis case. Respondent has provided no evidence suggesting that it is unable to pay the proposed\ncivil penalty or that paying the penalty would adversely affect its ability to continue in business.\nPHMSA has no evidence that Respondent gained any ascertainable economic benefit from the\nviolations.\nThe other assessment factors are considered in the discussion of each Item below.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a). As discussed above, I found that Respondent violated § 195.412(a) by failing to\ninspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way at least every three\nweeks.\n\n\n\n13\nRespondent could not produce records demonstrating that required surface inspections took\nplace. The missing r","truncated":true,"body_characters":68269}