{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420105010","title":"WEST TEXAS GULF PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-03-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(e)(3), 195.402(e)(9), 195.505(c), 195.52(a), 195.54(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420105010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420105010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420105010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420105010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WEST TEXAS GULF PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(13),  195.402(c)(3),  195.402(e)(3),  195.402(e)(9),  195.505(c),  195.52(a),  195.54(a). The case was opened on 2010-03-11 and is reported as closed as of 2013-06-10. Proposed civil penalty: $415,000. Assessed civil penalty: $405,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420105010_Closure_06102013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Closure_06102013.pdf\n\n420105010_Closure_06102013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Closure_06102013_text.pdf\n\n420105010_Decision on Reconsideration_12312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_12312012.pdf\n\n420105010_Decision on Reconsideration_12312012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_12312012_text.pdf\n\n420105010_Final Order_08012012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Final%20Order_08012012.pdf\n\n420105010_Final Order_08012012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Final%20Order_08012012_text.pdf\n\n420105010_NOPV PCP PCO_03112010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03112010.pdf\n\n420105010_NOPV PCP PCO_03112010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03112010_text.pdf\n\n420105010_Response to NOPV PCP PCO_04112010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105010/420105010_Response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04112010.pdf\n\n420105010_Decision on Reconsideration_12312012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 31, 2012\nMr. Michael J. Hennigan\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSunoco Logistics Partners L.P.\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-3615\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-5010\nDear Mr. Hennigan:\nEnclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It\ngrants your Petition, in part, to the extent you requested reconsideration of the civil penalty\namount assessed in the August 1, 2012 Final Order and reduces the total civil penalty by\n$10,000, but denies your Petition in all other respects. Service of the Decision by certified mail\nis deemed effective upon the date 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 Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, PHMSA\nMs. Lisa A. Runyon, Senior Counsel, Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P.\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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 Logistics Partners, L.P., ) )\n)\n)\nPetitioner. )\n______________________________)\nCPF No. 4-2010-5010\nDECISION ON RECONSIDERATION\nIn an August 1, 2012 Final Order, I found that Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P. (Sunoco Logistics\nor Petitioner) had committed seven violations of the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations\nin 49 C.F.R. Part 195 in connection with an investigation by the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of an accident that occurred on the West Texas Gulf\nPipeline System at the Colorado Station in Colorado City Texas on June 17, 2009.1 Specifically,\nI found that Sunoco Logistics had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.52(a)(2), 195.50(a), 195.402(c)(3),\n195.402(c)(13), 195.402(e), 195.402(e)(9), and 195.505(c) (Items 1-7 respectively). I assessed\nPetitioner a civil penalty of $415,000 for committing these violations and ordered the company\nto take certain actions to comply with the cited regulations.\nOn August 27, 2012, Sunoco Logistics submitted a petition for reconsideration (Petition) of the\nFinal Order. In its Petition, Sunoco Logistics requested reconsideration of the findings of\nviolation for Items 1, 2, and 4 of the Final Order, and requested that the civil penalties assessed\nfor these three items be rescinded.\n2\nHaving reviewed the record including all factual and legal arguments, I find that Petitioner’s\narguments warrant a partial reduction in the civil penalties assessed for Items 1 and 2 in the\nAugust 1, 2012 Final Order as set forth below. Accordingly, the Petition is granted in part, to the\nextent that it sought reconsideration of the civil penalties assessed for Items 1 and 2. I also find\nthat the findings of violation in the Final Order for all three of these items were supported by the\nevidence, and that Petitioner has presented no information or arguments that would warrant the\nwithdrawal of any of these three findings of violation. I further find that Petitioner has presented\n1 In the Matter of Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2010-5010 (Aug. 1, 2012).\n2 Petition at 1-2.\n\n\n\n2\nno information or arguments that would warrant the reduction or elimination of the civil penalty\nassessed for Item 4. Accordingly, the Petition is denied in all other respects.\nStandard of Review\nA Petitioner is afforded the right to petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a\nFinal Order. However, that right does not constitute an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de\nnovo review of the record. Instead, it is a venue for presenting the Associate Administrator with\ninformation that was not previously available or requesting that any errors in the Final Order be\ncorrected. Requests for consideration of additional facts or arguments must be supported by a\nstatement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance\nof the Final Order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered.3\nBackground\nOn March 11, 2010, PHMSA issued to Petitioner a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) as a result of an investigation by PHMSA of\nan accident that occurred on the West Texas Gulf Pipeline System at the Colorado Station in\nColorado City Texas on June 17, 2009. On that date, a fire occurred during a pipeline repair\nproject involving the replacement of a section of pipe and a spill of approximately 3,416 barrels\nof crude oil occurred later that day at the same location. In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco Logistics had committed various violations\nof 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $415,000 for the alleged\nviolations. The Notice also proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations.\nSunoco Logistics responded to the Notice by letter dated April 11, 2010 (Response). Petitioner\ncontested most of the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was held on\nSeptember 23, 2010, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,\nPHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Petitioner was represented by counsel. After the hearing,\nPetitioner provided additional written material for the record, by letter dated November 23, 2010\n(Closing Response).\nOn August 1, 2012, I issued a Final Order finding that Sunoco Logistics had violated 49 C.F.R.\n§§ 195.52(a)(2), 195.50(a), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(e), 195.402(e)(9), and\n195.505(c); assessing Petitioner a civil penalty of $415,000 for committing these violations; and\nordering the company to take certain actions to comply with the cited regulations.\n3 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a)-(e).\n\n\n\n3\nAnalysis\nI. Final Order Items 1 and 2 regarding Accident Reporting\nItem 1 of the Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(2) by failing to\ngive telephonic notice to the National Response Center at the earliest practicable moment after\nan unintentional fire occurred at the Colorado City Station on June 17, 2009 during a project\ninvolving the removal and replacement of a section of 24-inch diameter pipe that functioned as\nthe suction and fill line for a crude oil breakout tank designated as Tank No. 10 (Line 10\nProject). Item 2 of the Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.50(a) by failing\nto submit a written accident report to PHMSA following the accident.\nSunoco Logistics undertook the Line 10 Project to replace a 5-foot section of the pipe due to\ncorrosion in the pipe wall. Once the pipe was “cold cut” open and the corroded 5-foot section of\npipe removed, petroleum was allowed to drip out of both sides of the open pipe into catch pans\nand mud was packed into both sides of the pipe opening to isolate the petroleum from the repair\nwork involving torches. During the torch-beveling process, which is part of preparing the new\npipe for welding, at least one mud pack failed, allowing some form of petroleum to escape past\nthe mud and flammable petroleum vapors were ignited by the torch.\nAt this point, all personnel involved in the beveling process left the area immediately to escape\nthe fire. The project leader then returned with a fire extinguisher and the fire was extinguished\nwithin about 15 minutes.4 Sunoco Logistics ceased the repair work and contacted the West\nTexas District Manager in Abilene, Texas, who dispatched a Safety and Health Specialist to the\nColorado City Station to investigate the fire.\nIn its Responses, at the hearing, and in its Petition, Sunoco Logistics argued with respect to both\nItems 1 and 2 that “the release was not a release from the pipeline and even if it was it did not\nconstitute a release of hazardous liquids as required under the regulations to trigger a release\nnotification.”5\nIn evaluating Petitioner’s argument that this fire was not required to be reported, I noted in the\nFinal Order that the pipeline safety regulations in Part 195 are not limited to pipeline safety risks\narising solely from products in a liquid state. In § 195.2, the definition of “hazardous liquid”\nmeans “petroleum, petroleum products, or anhydrous ammonia.” It does not state that petroleum\nor petroleum products must be in a liquid state. For many years, PHMSA’s regulations have\nspecifically required hazardous liquid pipeline operators to address the safety threats posed by\nhazardous and/or flammable vapors incident to the transportation of hazardous liquids by\npipeline. For example, § 195.438 prohibits “smoking and open flames in each pump station area\nand each breakout tank area where there is a possibility of the leakage of a flammable hazardous\nliquid or of the presence of flammable vapors.”6 In this case, Petitioner’s own internal\n4 Statement of Felix M. Ramos, June 24, 2009 at 2. PHMSA Violation Report Exhibit G.\n5 Petition at 1.\n\n\n\n4\ninvestigation of the Line 10 Project accident concluded that the petroleum fire occurred “due to\ncrude oil or crude oil vapors” passing around the mud plug.7\nThe last “catch-all” item in the list of criteria for reporting in § 195.52(a)(5) is an accident that\n“In the judgment of the operator was significant even though it did not meet the criteria of any\nother paragraph of this section.” A fire occurring on a pipeline that transports flammable\npetroleum is a particularly hazardous type of pipeline accident and the fact that Petitioner ceased\nthe repair work and launched an investigation by its Safety and Health Specialist demonstrates\nthat Petitioner’s project leader considered the accident to be significant at the time it occurred.\nIn the Final Order, I also noted that the purpose of accident reporting goes well beyond the need\nto keep statistics on spill volumes. Accident reporting provides a means for prompt response and\ninvestigation of significant accidents of this nature that put pipeline personnel at risk during pipe\nrepairs and replacements. Both federal and state regulators depend on data from these accident\nreports to evaluate operator performance and manage their inspection programs, and to identify\ntrends that may require changes or additions to the regulations to ensure safety. I found that\nPetitioner’s argument that an unintentional petroleum fire need not be reported runs counter to\nthe Part 195 regulations and would not be consistent with pipeline safety.\nBased on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I find, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.215(c), that the arguments in Sunoco Logistics’ Petition regarding the findings\nof violation for Items 1 and 2 are repetitious. Notwithstanding such finding, I have considered\nall the information and arguments submitted by Petitioner and find no basis to alter the findings\nof violation in the Final Order. Therefore, I affirm the findings of violation set forth in the Final\nOrder for Items 1 and 2.\nReconsideration of the Civil Penalties Assessed for Items 1 and 2\nIn assessing the civil penalties for Items 1 and 2 in the Final Order, I considered the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Petitioner’s culpability; the history of Petitioner’s prior offenses; Petitioner’s ability to\npay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business;\nand the good faith of Petitioner in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. I\nnoted that accident reporting is a longstanding regulatory requirement and is a key part of\npipeline safety. The absence of reporting is serious because it can adversely impact the oversight\nprocess. Making a telephonic report is not a costly or burdensome requirement and I found that\nPetitioner was fully culpable for its failure to provide telephonic notice since there was no\nimpediment to doing so.\n6 Many petroleum-based hazardous liquids are volatile and form vapor when exposed to the atmosphere depending\non the temperature and the properties of the particular substance.\n7 Investigation Report for Colorado City Station Oil Spill, July 6, 2009, at 4. Response, Attachment 3.\n\n\n\n5\nWhile Petitioner’s argument that Items 1 and 2 be withdrawn entirely was not persuasive, I\nacknowledge that this appears to be the first enforcement case to specifically articulate the need\nto report this particular type of fire. As a result, Petitioner may have had a credible, if erroneous\nbelief that reporting was not required.8 While PHMSA believes that any operator in Petitioner’s\ncircumstances should have reasonably concluded that reporting was required, if there is\nlegitimate uncertainty about the applicability of a particular regulation, it is not always\nappropriate for the first operator found to have violated that regulation to be subjected to the full\namount of the penalty that would otherwise be assessed after all other operators can avail\nthemselves of the precedent established by that first instance. In this case, I acknowledge that\nPetitioner may have had a credible, if erroneous belief, that reporting was not required.\nFor the reasons discussed above, having reviewed the record and reconsidered the assessment\ncriteria, I find that a 50 percent reduction in the civil penalty amounts assessed in the Final Order\nfor Items 1 and 2 is warranted. Accordingly, I assess Petitioner a reduced civil penalty of $5,000\nfor its violation of § 195.52(a)(2) (Item 1) and $5,000 for its violation of § 195.50(a) (Item 2).\nII. Final Order Item 4 regarding Lockout/Tagout Audits\nItem 4 of the Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to\nfollow its own procedures for determining the effectiveness of company procedures used in\nnormal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies were found.\nSpecifically, it alleged that Sunoco Logistics failed to conduct annual field audits of\nLockout/Tagout (LOTO) work done by operator personnel at the Colorado City Station for 2008\nand 2009, as set forth in its own Procedure HS-P-005.\nIn its Responses, at the hearing, and in its Petition, Sunoco Logistics argued that its failure to\nconduct annual field audits for 2008 and 2009 at the Colorado City Station was due to its use of a\n“random sampling” approach and not all stations in each geographic district where LOTO work\nhad been done were audited every year.9\nThe LOTO procedure in effect during the relevant period states the following at page 18 in\nrelevant part:\nThe LOTO's required by this program will be reviewed at least annually\nby HES [Health, Environment, and Safety Dept.] to assure that the\nprocedures and the requirements of this program are being followed. This\nreview will be supplemented by:\n• Work site inspections conducted by HES, and any reports of\nprogram deficiencies made by Sunoco Logistics’ supervisors; and,\n8 Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.11(a), however, an operator can obtain information and advice about compliance by\ntelephone and internet at any time during business hours.\n9 Petition at 2.\n\n\n\n6\n• A review of LOTO records, including site-specific ECPs [Energy\nControl Procedures] used or developed during the course of the\nyear, and\n• A review of LOTOs being used at the facility.\nThe periodic review will be designed to correct any deviations or\ninadequacies observed.10\nIn the Final Order, I noted that this procedure requires Petitioner to conduct annual field audits of\nall LOTO done by its personnel and does not exclude any facilities from being audited. Notably,\nPetitioner followed this procedure for all facilities for three consecutive years in 2005, 2006, and\n2007 but did not follow it in 2008 and 2009 for the Colorado City Station, the period leading up\nto the June 17, 2009 accident.11 Petitioner did not provide any documentation of a decision by\nthe company to change to a sampling approach in the 2008 period.\nBased on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I find, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.215(c), that the arguments in Sunoco Logistics’ Petition regarding the findings\nof violation for Item 4 are repetitious. Notwithstanding such finding, I have considered all the\ninformation and arguments submitted by Petitioner and find no basis to alter the finding of\nviolation in the Final Order. Therefore, I affirm the finding of violation set forth in the Final\nOrder for Item 4.\nReconsideration of the Civil Penalty Assessed for Item 4\nIn assessing the civil penalty for Item 4 in the Final Order, I considered the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Petitioner’s culpability; the history of Petitioner’s prior offenses; Petitioner’s ability to\npay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business;\nand the good faith of Petitioner in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. I\nnoted that the 3,416 barrel oil spill was a direct consequence of the failure to fully accomplish\nLOTO. If Petitioner had performed the annual field audits of LOTO work in 2008 and 2009—\nthe time period leading up to the accident—the deficiencies that manifested themselves on June\n17, 2009, may have potentially been identified and corrected. Petitioner presented no\njustification for its failure to conduct these field audits.\nPetitioner has presented no information or arguments that warrant a reduction in the penalty\namount assessed in the Final Order for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I affirm the assessment in the Final Order of a civil penalty of\n$22,500 for Petitioner’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13).\n10 PHMSA Violation Report, Exhibit C.\n11 Respondent provided a Lockout/Tagout audit record to PHMSA dated 7/2009 but this record was for a specific\nproject (project number 935004-isolate idle line 1-2-3-18/Booster pump) and was not an annual field audit for\nLockout/Tagout work at the station.\n\n\n\n7\nRELIEF GRANTED\nBased on a review of the record and for the reasons stated above, the civil penalty of $10,000\nassessed for Item 1 in the Final Order is reduced to $5,000; and the civil penalty of $10,000\nassessed for Item 2 in the Final Order is reduced to $5,000.\nRELIEF DENIED\nBased on a review of the record and for the reasons stated above, the Petition is denied in all\nother respects.\nPayment of the $405,000 civil penalty assessed in the Final Order, as reduced by this Decision, is\nnow due. To date, Petitioner has already paid $372,500 of this penalty. I hereby order that the\nremaining penalty amount of $32,500 be paid within 20 days following receipt of this Decision\nin accordance with the payment instructions set forth in detail in the Final Order. Federal\nregulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require that all payments be made by wire transfer, through\nthe Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should\nbe directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration,\nMike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-\n8893.\nFailure to pay the remaining $32,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current\nannual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for\nappropriate action in a district court of the United States.\nThis Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\n_____________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420105010_NOPV PCP PCO_03112010_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 11, 2010\nMr. David Justin\nVice President – Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\nEastern Area headquarters\n525 Fritztown Road\nSinking Springs, PA 19608\nCPF 4-2010-5010\nDear Mr. Justin:\nFrom June 18, 2009 through July 17, 2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of Title 49 United States\nCode investigated an accident that occurred at West Texas Gulf Pipeline Company’s Colorado\nCity Station near Colorado City, Texas on June 17, 2009. West Texas Gulf Pipeline Company is\na subsidiary of Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (Sunoco), and the West Texas Gulf Pipeline System is\noperated by Sunoco.\nAs a result of the accident investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations\nof the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected\nand the probable violation(s) are:\n\n\n\n1. §195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery of a release of the\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide transported resulting in an event described in\n§195.50, the operator of the system shall give notice, in accordance with paragraph\n(b) of this section, of any failure that:\n(2) Resulted in either a fire or explosion not intentionally set by the\noperator;\nSunoco failed to provide telephonic notice to the National Response Center (NRC) of a\nfire that occurred at Colorado City Station during the preparation for welding a new piece\nof pipe into a 24-inch pipeline from which a 5-foot section of this pipeline has been\nremoved. The fire occurred between 1:00 pm and 1:30 pm on June 17, 2009. Mud plugs\non both sides of the 24-inch pipeline failed allowing hydrocarbon vapor to escape from\nthe pipe.\nThe project manager notified the West Texas district manager in Abilene, TX, shortly\nafter the fire accident. The Safety and Health Specialist was assigned to go to Colorado\nCity station to investigate the fire accident. While en route to the fire accident site, he\nwas notified that 3416 bbls. of crude oil spill occurred at the same location where a fire\noccurred. Sunoco reported the crude oil spill accident to the NRC (NRC # 908908);\nhowever, there was no telephonic report for the fire that occurred approximately three (3)\nhours before the crude oil spill on June 17, 2009.\n2. §195.50 Reporting accidents.\nAn accident report is required for each failure in a pipeline system subject to this\npart in which there is a release of the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\ntransported resulting in any of the following:\n(a) Explosion or fire not intentionally set by the operator.\n§195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported under\n§195.50 shall as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after discovery of the\naccident, prepare and file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1, or a facsimile.\nSunoco failed to submit an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1, or a facsimile to\nPHMSA within 30 days for a fire that occurred at Colorado City Station during the\npreparation for welding a new piece of pipe into a 24-inch pipeline from which a 5-foot\nsection of this pipeline has been removed. The fire occurred between 1:00 pm and 1:30\npm on June 17, 2009.\n2\n\n\n\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nSunoco has written procedures for conducting work in a facility. During the Line 10\nProject at the Colorado City Station, Sunoco employees and contractors did not follow\ncertain procedures as described below. Based on the investigation conducted by\nPHMSA, it appears that if Sunoco employees and contractors had followed these\nprocedures during the Line 10 Project at the Colorado City Station, the accident on June\n17, 2009, that resulted in the release of 3416 bbls. of crude oil could have been prevented.\nSunoco did not follow Line Time Request/Work Plan procedure for scheduling\nmaintenance work which requires down time. Below is a listing of deficiencies identified\nduring the accident investigation regarding the Line 10 project.\n• List of Equipment/Valves/Energy Sourced to be Locked Out was not filled out\n• No notification of the job status was provided to the appropriate personnel\n• No detailed work plan for the Line 10 project was generated\n• Two projects were combined into one (1) Line Time Request/Work Plan- there must\nbe two (2) separate work plans generated (one for Snyder project – manifold\nmodification, and one for the replacement of a corroded pipe associated with tank\n10).\n• Clear communication between controller at Sugarland and Colorado City Station was\nnot established. The controller in Sugarland didn’t know the Line 10 project was\nextended beyond June 16, 2009 as stated on the original Timeline Request.\n• No fire watchers were assigned\n• No pre-job safety meeting was conducted\nSunoco did not follow the Overview of Work Permits procedure, HS-G-012. The work\npermit # 253852 for the Line 10 project was issued by the on-site project leader. Below\nis a listing of requirements that Sunoco did not follow.\n• There was not a hot work permit checklist or energy control procedure (lock-out/tag-\nout) attached to the hot permit\n• The on-site project leader did not conduct a hazard assessment prior to starting the\nproject\nSunoco also did not follow the Lockout/Tagout Program, HS-P-005, Appendix HS-P-\n006-1 “General LOTO Checklist” and HS-P-006-2 “General LOTO Procedures” for the\nLine 10 project which involved the removal of a five-foot segment of the 24-inch line on\nJune 17, 2009, at Colorado City Station, TX. The investigation evidence showed that the\nmaintenance crew cut an in-service line.\n3\n\n\n\n4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance\nand taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nSunoco did not conduct annual field audits of Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) for 2008 and\n2009 as required in LOTO procedure (HS-P-005). The last annual audit was conducted\non 10/03/2007.\n5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(e) Emergencies The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include\nprocedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs;\n(2)Prompt and effective response to a notice of each type emergency,\nincluding fire or explosion occurring near or directly involving a pipeline\nfacility, accidental release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a\npipeline facility, operational failure causing a hazardous condition, and\nnatural disaster affecting pipeline facilities.\n(3) Having personnel, equipment, instruments, tools, and material available\nas needed at the scene of an emergency.\nSunoco did not have personnel, equipment, instruments, tools, and material available as\nneeded at the scene of an emergency. Sunoco and contractor employees who were\ninvolved in the Line 10 project were sent to the spill area without proper personal\nprotective equipment (PPE) in response to the release of 3416 bbls of sour crude oil.\nFigure 2.10-2, “Hydrogen Sulfide initial response action checklist” of the Sunoco West\nTexas Response Zone Oil Spill Response Plan calls for response personnel to “wear a\nfull faced self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or goggles and a half faced SCBA.”\nNone of the individuals sent to the spill area for emergency response to this sour crude oil\nspill were provided with the required respirators even though the presence of hydrogen\nsulfide gas was detected by respondent’s smell and hazardous gas monitoring equipment.\n6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(e) Emergencies (see above)\n(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine\nwhether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking\ncorrective action where deficiencies are found.\nSunoco did not conduct a post-accident review of emergency response activities to\ndetermine if the emergency response procedure was effective and was implemented\nproperly. Sunoco did not follow the procedural requirements of Section 8.3 of the West\nTexas Response Zone/Oil Spill Response Plan Section 8 that requires that the operator\n4\n\n\n\ndebrief employees within two weeks of the termination of response operations on the\nfindings of the post accident review, and the required “Standard Incident Debriefing\nForm” in Figure 8.3.1 was not completed as part of the review. PHMSA requested\ndocumentation of the required post accident review, and no documentation was provided.\nA Sunoco Compliance Specialist stated that Sunoco investigated the cause of the incident\nand made the decision terminating three employees who were found to have violated\nSunoco’s safety procedures, and no further review of employee activities regarding\nemergency response was conducted.\n7. §195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform\na covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\nSunoco failed to ensure that non-qualified employees performing a covered task (# 402\nremove/replace pipe component – welded or mechanical) were under the direct\nobservation and direction of a qualified individual. Sunoco did not follow the procedural\nrequirements of Section 8 (Non-Qualified Individuals) of their OQ Plan because the\nqualified individual was not directing and observing the covered task being performed in\nthe manifold pit where the accident occurred (cutting out and replacing 5-foot segment),\nand he was directing and observing multiple covered tasks at the same time. The Sunoco\nSenior Pipeliner (Line 10 on-site project leader), was responsible for overseeing the Line\n10 work done by non-qualified personnel in the manifold pit area, and he was required to\nbe at the job site for direct observation and direction of non-qualified personnel\nperforming the covered task. However, the Sunoco Senior Pipeliner was not always\npresent at the manifold pit work area, and he was at different places during the\nperformance of the work where direct observation and direction of the non-qualified\nindividuals was not possible. During performance of the manifold pit work, he was\nchecking on work being performed by BJB contractor by the maintenance shop, checking\non drain valve work associated with breakout tank #10, and checking on vacuum truck\nremoving crude oil. While he was at these other places, he lost visual contact with the\nmanifold pit area work, and he was not able to direct and observe the covered task being\nperformed by non-qualified individuals.\n5\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $415,000 as follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\n$ 10,000\n2\n$ 10,000\n3\n$ 200,000\n$ 22,500\n5\n6\n$ 37,500\n$ 35,000\n$ 100,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 2, 3, 4, and 6 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco\nPipeline L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\n6\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2010-5010 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n7\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sunoco Pipeline L.P. a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sunoco Pipeline\nL.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Sunoco’s failure to submit\nan accident report on DOT Form 7000-1, or a facsimile to PHMSA within 30\ndays for a fire that occurred at Colorado City Station between 1:00 pm and 1:30\npm on June 17, 2009, Sunoco must submit this report within 90 days following\nreceipt of the Final order.\n2. In regards to Item 3, Sunoco must incorporate the lessons learned from its June\n17, 2009 accident investigation into its training program and provide this training\nto its employees within 90 days following receipt of the Final Order.\n3. In regards to Item 4, Sunoco must incorporate deficiencies during the review of\npersonnel performance in response to this accident into its’ emergency response\ntraining program and provide this training to its employees within 90 days\nfollowing receipt of the Final Order.\n4. In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to Sunoco’s failure to\nconduct a post-accident review of emergency response activities that occurred in\nresponse to the accident that occurred around 4:00 pm on June 17, 2009 and\nresulted in the release of 3416 bbls. of sour crude oil, Sunoco must submit this\nreport within 90 days following receipt of the Final Order.\n5. Submit the results of the Proposed Compliance Order item above to Mr. R. M.\nSeeley, Region Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 8701 South Gessner, Suite 1110,\nHouston, TX 77074.\n6. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Mr.\nR. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n8\n\n420105010_Closure_06102013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 10, 2013\nMr. Michael J. Hennigan\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSunoco Logistics Partners L.P.\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-3615\nCPF 4-2010-5010\nDear Mr. Hennigan:\nOn August 1, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to\nSunoco Pipeline Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n\n420105010_Final Order_08012012_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 1, 2012\nMr. Michael J. Hennigan\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSunoco Logistics Partners, LP\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-3615\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-5010\nDear Mr. Hennigan:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $415,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nSunoco Logistics Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the Compliance Order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffre","truncated":true,"body_characters":93134}