{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420075041","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":"2007-11-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 190.213.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075041.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075041.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075041","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420075041","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 190.213. The case was opened on 2007-11-19 and is reported as closed as of 2010-09-13. Proposed civil penalty: $200,000. Assessed civil penalty: $200,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420075041_FinalOrder_06172010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075041/420075041_FinalOrder_06172010.pdf\n\n420075041_FinalOrder_06172010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075041/420075041_FinalOrder_06172010_text.pdf\n\n420075041_NOPV and PCP_11192007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075041/420075041_NOPV%20and%20PCP_11192007.pdf\n\n420075041_FinalOrder_06172010_text.pdf\n\nJUNE 17 2010\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n1735 Market Street / 29th Floor\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-5041\nDear Mr. Justin:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $200,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of the Final Order\nby certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [ 7005 1160 0001 0043 9405]\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. 4-2007-5041\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn January 9, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Final Order to Sunoco Pipeline L.P.\n(Sunoco or Respondent). Sunoco, a subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P., operates\napproximately 4,500 miles of regulated hazardous liquid pipelines transporting crude oil, refined\npetroleum products, and highly volatile liquids in Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and\nseveral other states. The Final Order and associated Compliance Order (January 2007 Order)\nfound that Respondent had committed violations of the pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195 and ordered the company to take measures to comply with those regulations within 30\ndays of its receipt of the Final Order.\n2007, as evidenced by an official return receipt.\n1 Sunoco received the January 2007 Order on January 17,\nAs a result of a review of Sunoco’s compliance with the terms of the January 2007 Order, the\nDirector, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated November 19,\n2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (November 2007 Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the November 2007 Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had violated the terms of the January 2007 Order and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $200,000 for the alleged violations.\nRespondent failed to respond within 30 days after it received the November 2007 Notice.\nSunoco’s failure to respond within 30 days constitutes a waiver of its right to contest the\nallegations in the Notice and authorizes the entry of this Final Order.2\nSunoco eventually\nresponded to the Notice by letter dated February 28, 2008 (February 2008 Response).\n1 In the Matter of Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2006-5005, 2007 WL 1202573 (Jan. 9, 2007) (also\navailable at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n2 49 C.F.R. § 190.209(c).\n\n\n\n2\nRespondent did not contest the allegations of violation but offered an explanation for its delayed\nresponse to the January 2007 Order, submitted information to demonstrate that it had complied\nwith the terms of that Order, and requested the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent\ndid not request a hearing.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, I find that Respondent violated the\nterms of the January 2007 Order, as follows:\nItem 1 of the January 2007 Order, which related to 49 C.F.R. § 195.118(c), required Respondent\nto:\nReview each meter facility fitting to determine if it is suitable for its\nintended service and is at least as strong as the pipe and other components\nof the pipeline facility to which it is attached. Perform corrective action\nnecessary to ensure that each fitting complies with 49 C.F.R. § 195.118(c).\nDemonstrate compliance by documenting that each fitting is suitable for\nits intended service and is at least as strong as the pipe and other\ncomponents of the pipeline facility to which it is attached and that MOP\ndoes not exceed the design pressure of each fitting . . . . [S]ubmit\ndocumentation of completion to the Director, Southwest Region, within 30\ndays of receipt of this Final Order.\nSunoco received the Order on January 17, 2007, as documented by an official return receipt.\nTherefore, the deadline for compliance with Item 1 was February 16, 2007. As of the date of the\nNovember 2007 Notice, PHMSA had not received any documentation from Sunoco\ndemonstrating compliance with Item 1.\nRespondent’s failure to respond within 30 days after it received the November 2007 Notice\nconstitutes a waiver of Respondent’s right to contest these allegations. Furthermore, in its late-\nfiled February 2008 Response, Sunoco did not contest these allegations. In its Response,\nhowever, the company submitted documentation demonstrating corrective measures that had\nbeen taken to comply with Item 1 of the January 2007 Order.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated Item 1 of the\nJanuary 2007 Order by failing to complete the required actions listed therein and to submit\ndocumentation of compliance by February 16, 2007.\nItem 2 of the January 2007 Order, which related to 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3), required\nRespondent to:\nReview each meter facility system map, drawing, and record to determine\nif it is current and includes the correct MOP of each pipeline. Perform\ncorrective action necessary to ensure that each meter facility system map,\n\n\n\n3\ndrawing, and record complies with 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3).\nDemonstrate compliance by documenting that each meter facility system\nmap, drawing, and record is current and includes the correct MOP of each\npipeline . . . . [S]ubmit documentation of completion to the Director,\nSouthwest Region, within 30 days of receipt of this Final Order.\nSunoco was required to complete the terms of Item 2 by February 16, 2007. As of the date of the\nNovember 2007 Notice, PHMSA had not received any documentation from Sunoco\ndemonstrating compliance with Item 2.\nRespondent’s failure to respond within 30 days after it received the November 2007 Notice\nconstitutes a waiver of Respondent’s right to contest these allegations. Furthermore, in its late-\nfiled February 2008 Response, Sunoco did not contest these allegations. In its Response,\nhowever, the company submitted documentation demonstrating corrective measures that had\nbeen taken to comply with Item 2 of the January 2007 Order.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated Item 2 of the\nJanuary 2007 Order by failing to complete the required actions listed therein and to submit\ndocumentation of compliance by February 16, 2007.\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 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 $200,000 for the violations.\nIn determining the amount of the civil penalty 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nRespondent’s failure to comply with a Final Order issued by PHMSA is a very serious violation.\nWhen PHMSA finds noncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations and takes official action\nto order compliance, PHMSA expects, and federal law mandates, that the operator adhere to the\nterms of that Order. An operator’s failure to comply with an agency Order poses an\nunacceptable risk to public safety, property, and the environment.\n\n\n\n4\nI have reviewed the company’s late-filed February 2008 Response, in which Sunoco requested\nthe civil penalty be reduced on the grounds that the company had moved offices in January 2006,\nwhich led to a “lack of continuity in responding to the [January 2007 Order].”3 Respondent\nexpressed a commitment to ensuring this would not happen again and indicated that it had\ncreated an audit tracking system. For these reasons, and the company’s history of being “very\nresponsive to PHMSA,\n” Sunoco requested a reduction to the civil penalty.\n4\nThe evidence in the record demonstrates that Sunoco ignored a Final Order and its compliance\nterms until long after the specified deadlines.\ncontacted Sunoco on several occasions after the company first missed its compliance deadline to\ninquire about the status of the company’s efforts to comply, but Sunoco was unresponsive.\nWhile Respondent has now taken actions to comply with the January 2007 Order, those actions\nwere completed long after the specified deadlines and only in response to the November 2007\nNotice, which proposed civil penalties for the company’s ongoing noncompliance. For these\nreasons, upon a review of all the evidence, I find that the nature, circumstances, and gravity of\nthe violations support the proposed civil penalty, and that the other assessment criteria do not\njustify any reduction to the civil penalty.\n5 Staff of the Southwest Region, OPS, had\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $200,000.\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-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $200,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 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 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. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. If submitting a petition, the petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, and a copy sent to the Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address.\n3 Response at 2.\n4 Id.\n5 Sunoco never submitted a request for an extension of time to comply with the terms of the January 2007 Order,\neven though the Order expressly provided that an extension may be granted for good cause.\n\n\n\n5\nThe petition must be received within 20 days of service, but may be considered timely if\nreceived within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order. The petition must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing\nof the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. If Respondent\nsubmits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision\nand the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13364}