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

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

Official case documents:

420075041_FinalOrder_06172010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075041/420075041_FinalOrder_06172010.pdf

420075041_FinalOrder_06172010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075041/420075041_FinalOrder_06172010_text.pdf

420075041_NOPV and PCP_11192007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075041/420075041_NOPV%20and%20PCP_11192007.pdf

420075041_FinalOrder_06172010_text.pdf

JUNE 17 2010
Mr. David A. Justin
Vice President, Operations
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
1735 Market Street / 29th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Re: CPF No. 4-2007-5041
Dear Mr. Justin:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation
and assesses a civil penalty of $200,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final
Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of the Final Order
by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [ 7005 1160 0001 0043 9405]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Sunoco Pipeline L.P., ) CPF No. 4-2007-5041
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On January 9, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Final Order to Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
(Sunoco or Respondent). Sunoco, a subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P., operates
approximately 4,500 miles of regulated hazardous liquid pipelines transporting crude oil, refined
petroleum products, and highly volatile liquids in Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and
several other states. The Final Order and associated Compliance Order (January 2007 Order)
found that Respondent had committed violations of the pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R.
Part 195 and ordered the company to take measures to comply with those regulations within 30
days of its receipt of the Final Order.
2007, as evidenced by an official return receipt.
1 Sunoco received the January 2007 Order on January 17,
As a result of a review of Sunoco’s compliance with the terms of the January 2007 Order, the
Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated November 19,
2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (November 2007 Notice). In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the November 2007 Notice proposed finding that
Respondent had violated the terms of the January 2007 Order and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $200,000 for the alleged violations.
Respondent failed to respond within 30 days after it received the November 2007 Notice.
Sunoco’s failure to respond within 30 days constitutes a waiver of its right to contest the
allegations in the Notice and authorizes the entry of this Final Order.2
Sunoco eventually
responded to the Notice by letter dated February 28, 2008 (February 2008 Response).
1 In the Matter of Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2006-5005, 2007 WL 1202573 (Jan. 9, 2007) (also
available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
2 49 C.F.R. § 190.209(c).



2
Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation but offered an explanation for its delayed
response to the January 2007 Order, submitted information to demonstrate that it had complied
with the terms of that Order, and requested the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent
did not request a hearing.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, I find that Respondent violated the
terms of the January 2007 Order, as follows:
Item 1 of the January 2007 Order, which related to 49 C.F.R. § 195.118(c), required Respondent
to:
Review each meter facility fitting to determine if it is suitable for its
intended service and is at least as strong as the pipe and other components
of the pipeline facility to which it is attached. Perform corrective action
necessary to ensure that each fitting complies with 49 C.F.R. § 195.118(c).
Demonstrate compliance by documenting that each fitting is suitable for
its intended service and is at least as strong as the pipe and other
components of the pipeline facility to which it is attached and that MOP
does not exceed the design pressure of each fitting . . . . [S]ubmit
documentation of completion to the Director, Southwest Region, within 30
days of receipt of this Final Order.
Sunoco received the Order on January 17, 2007, as documented by an official return receipt.
Therefore, the deadline for compliance with Item 1 was February 16, 2007. As of the date of the
November 2007 Notice, PHMSA had not received any documentation from Sunoco
demonstrating compliance with Item 1.
Respondent’s failure to respond within 30 days after it received the November 2007 Notice
constitutes a waiver of Respondent’s right to contest these allegations. Furthermore, in its late-
filed February 2008 Response, Sunoco did not contest these allegations. In its Response,
however, the company submitted documentation demonstrating corrective measures that had
been taken to comply with Item 1 of the January 2007 Order.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated Item 1 of the
January 2007 Order by failing to complete the required actions listed therein and to submit
documentation of compliance by February 16, 2007.
Item 2 of the January 2007 Order, which related to 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3), required
Respondent to:
Review each meter facility system map, drawing, and record to determine
if it is current and includes the correct MOP of each pipeline. Perform
corrective action necessary to ensure that each meter facility system map,



3
drawing, and record complies with 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3).
Demonstrate compliance by documenting that each meter facility system
map, drawing, and record is current and includes the correct MOP of each
pipeline . . . . [S]ubmit documentation of completion to the Director,
Southwest Region, within 30 days of receipt of this Final Order.
Sunoco was required to complete the terms of Item 2 by February 16, 2007. As of the date of the
November 2007 Notice, PHMSA had not received any documentation from Sunoco
demonstrating compliance with Item 2.
Respondent’s failure to respond within 30 days after it received the November 2007 Notice
constitutes a waiver of Respondent’s right to contest these allegations. Furthermore, in its late-
filed February 2008 Response, Sunoco did not contest these allegations. In its Response,
however, the company submitted documentation demonstrating corrective measures that had
been taken to comply with Item 2 of the January 2007 Order.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated Item 2 of the
January 2007 Order by failing to complete the required actions listed therein and to submit
documentation of compliance by February 16, 2007.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses 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 $200,000 for the violations.
In determining the amount of the civil penalty 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
Respondent’s failure to comply with a Final Order issued by PHMSA is a very serious violation.
When PHMSA finds noncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations and takes official action
to order compliance, PHMSA expects, and federal law mandates, that the operator adhere to the
terms of that Order. An operator’s failure to comply with an agency Order poses an
unacceptable risk to public safety, property, and the environment.



4
I have reviewed the company’s late-filed February 2008 Response, in which Sunoco requested
the civil penalty be reduced on the grounds that the company had moved offices in January 2006,
which led to a “lack of continuity in responding to the [January 2007 Order].”3 Respondent
expressed a commitment to ensuring this would not happen again and indicated that it had
created an audit tracking system. For these reasons, and the company’s history of being “very
responsive to PHMSA,
” Sunoco requested a reduction to the civil penalty.
4
The evidence in the record demonstrates that Sunoco ignored a Final Order and its compliance
terms until long after the specified deadlines.
contacted Sunoco on several occasions after the company first missed its compliance deadline to
inquire about the status of the company’s efforts to comply, but Sunoco was unresponsive.
While Respondent has now taken actions to comply with the January 2007 Order, those actions
were completed long after the specified deadlines and only in response to the November 2007
Notice, which proposed civil penalties for the company’s ongoing noncompliance. For these
reasons, upon a review of all the evidence, I find that the nature, circumstances, and gravity of
the violations support the proposed civil penalty, and that the other assessment criteria do not
justify any reduction to the civil penalty.
5 Staff of the Southwest Region, OPS, had
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a total civil penalty of $200,000.
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-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. The Financial
Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $200,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 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 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. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. If submitting a petition, the petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator,
Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,
Washington, DC 20590, and a copy sent to the Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address.
3 Response at 2.
4 Id.
5 Sunoco never submitted a request for an extension of time to comply with the terms of the January 2007 Order,
even though the Order expressly provided that an extension may be granted for good cause.



5
The petition must be received within 20 days of service, but may be considered timely if
received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order. The petition must contain a
brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing
of the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. If Respondent
submits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision
and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 13364