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

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420165020
- **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:** 2016-06-02
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b)(1), 195.402(a), 195.432(b), 195.432(d), 195.452(l)(1), 195.56(a), 195.579(a), 199.202.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165020.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165020.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165020
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165020
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b)(1),  195.402(a),  195.432(b),  195.432(d),  195.452(l)(1),  195.56(a),  195.579(a),  199.202. The case was opened on 2016-06-02 and is reported as closed as of 2018-01-08. Proposed civil penalty: $169,200. Assessed civil penalty: $141,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420165020_Closure Letter_01082018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_Closure%20Letter_01082018.pdf

420165020_Closure Letter_01082018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_Closure%20Letter_01082018_text.pdf

420165020_Final Order_09152017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_Final%20Order_09152017.pdf

420165020_Final Order_09152017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_Final%20Order_09152017_text.pdf

420165020_NOPV PCP PCO_06022016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06022016.pdf

420165020_NOPV PCP PCO_06022016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06022016_text.pdf

420165020_Operator Response to Notice_07112016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165020/420165020_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07112016.pdf

420165020_Final Order_09152017_text.pdf

September 15, 2017
Mr. Kelcy L. Warren
Chief Executive Officer
Sunoco Pipeline, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, TX 75225
Re: CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Dear Mr. Warren:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $141,700, and specifies actions that need to be
taken by Sunoco Pipeline, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to
acknowledge partial payment of the civil penalty in the amount of $33,700 by wire transfer dated
July 13, 2016, leaving a balance due of $108,000. The payment terms for the remaining penalty
are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. 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,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Ryan Coffey, Executive Vice-President – Operations, Sunoco Pipeline, LP, 800 E.
Sonterra Boulevard, San Antonio, TX 78258
Mr. Todd Nardozzi, Senior Manager, DOT Compliance, Sunoco Pipeline, LP
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



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, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5020
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From March 24, 2014, to July 1, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Sunoco
Pipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent), throughout Texas. Sunoco is now an indirect subsidiary
of Energy Transfer Partners, LP, and operates approximately 6,800 miles of pipeline transporting
primarily crude oil and refined products in Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
several other states.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 2, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $169,200 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations and
included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. The warning item required no further
action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face future potential
enforcement action.
Sunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated July 11, 2016 (Response). The company
contested several of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore has waived its right to one.
1 See Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP, website, at http://www.sunocologistics.com/ (last accessed August 18, 2017).
On April 28, 2017, Sunoco’s general partner, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP, announced a merger with Energy
Transfer Partners, LP,which Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP, has changed its name to Energy Transfer Partners, LP.



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
UNCONTESTED
In its Response, Sunoco did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a), which states:
§ 195.56 Filing safety-related condition reports.
(a) Each report of a safety-related condition under §195.55(a) must be
filed (received by OPS) within five working days (not including Saturday,
Sunday, or Federal Holidays) after the day a representative of the operator
first determines that the condition exists, but not later than 10 working days
after the day a representative of the operator discovers the condition.
Separate conditions may be described in a single report if they are closely
related. Reports may be transmitted by electronic mail
to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov, or by facsimile at (202) 366-
7128.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a) by failing to file safety-
related condition reports with PHMSA within five working days after determining conditions
existed that met the criteria of a safety-related condition. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on
December 3, 2013, Sunoco discovered nine anomalies in high consequence areas (HCAs),
including KLLR-CORS 13-2A, KLLR-CORS 13-3A, KLLR-CORS 13-4A, and 13-4B, and
documented the anomalies as “immediate conditions” due to physical damage to the pipeline.
The KLLR-CORS 13-3A, KLLR-CORS 13-4A, and 13-4B conditions were repaired on
December 18, 2013, which exceeded five working days from December 4, 2013, the date Sunoco
determined safety-related conditions existed. Further, the KLLR-CORS 13-2A condition was
repaired on December 19, 2013, which also exceeded five working days after the December 4,
2013 determination of the condition.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a) by failing to file safety-
related condition reports with PHMSA within five working days after determining conditions
existed that met the criteria of a safety-related condition.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:
§ 195.402 emergencies.
Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 3
as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be
prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and
appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.402(a) by failing to follow its own
written procedures for tank maintenance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to
follow Subpart F, § 195.432 of its Operations and Maintenance Manual, Inspection of In-Service
Breakout Tanks procedure, by not documenting conditions that could affect safe operation of its
breakout tanks. The requisite documentation was allegedly not completed in the following
instances:
1. During the PHMSA field inspection at Sunoco’s Ringgold facility in September 2014, the
PHMSA inspector found a crack on the Tank 2703 ringwall that had been discovered by
Sunoco in February 2014. Sunoco’s monthly inspection reports for Tank 2703 from
February 2014 to September 2014 demonstrated that Sunoco failed to document the crack
on the ringwall.
2. Tank 5 at Sunoco’s Colorado City facility was found to have approximately 10 feet of the
ringwall foundation severely damaged, which was noted on the tank’s post-inspection
repair report in December 2011. Sunoco’s monthly inspection reports for Tank 5
demonstrated that personnel failed to document the tank’s ringwall damage on its
monthly reports from August 2012 to December 2013. The damage was repaired in 2014
after the PHMSA inspector inquired about the damage.
3. During a PHMSA field inspection at Sunoco’s Corsicana facility in September 2014,
Tank 2602 was found to have a half-inch crack on the ringwall foundation. Tank 2602
monthly reports from September 2013 to August 2014 showed that Sunoco had failed to
document any ringwall damage during that time. The crack was repaired in October
2014 after the PHMSA inspector inquired about the damage.
Respondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its
own written procedures for tank maintenance.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.432 (a)…
Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according
to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection
Interval) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, if structural
conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed
according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 4
under §195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in API
Std 653, section 6.4.3, cannot be used to determine the internal inspection
interval . . . .
(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the
operator's last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) and (d) by failing to
perform internal inspections of in-service breakout tanks within the maximum interval of 10
years prescribed by API 653, Section 6.4.2.2, which states: “When corrosion rates are not known
and similar service experience is not available to estimate the bottom plate minimum thickness at
the next inspection, the internal inspection interval shall not exceed 10 years.” Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Sunoco could not provide the out-of-service internal inspection reports for
tanks 2601, 2603, 42, and 2720 to confirm that an internal inspection had been performed and
corrosion rates had been established.
According to the Notice, if the date of the last inspection cannot be determined based on
available records, an operator should perform an API 653 inspection immediately after acquiring
a breakout tank from another operator. Since Sunoco acquired ownership of tanks 2601, 2603,
and 2720 on August 1, 2005, and tank 42 on February 17, 2006, and could not determine when
the last internal inspections were performed, and the corrosion rates of the tanks were not known,
an internal inspection allegedly should have been performed immediately upon acquisition and
then at an interval not exceeding 10 years. The aforementioned internal-inspection reports had
also been requested by PHMSA during a 2007 inspection but Sunoco had been unable to provide
them at that time.
In addition, the Notice alleged that Tank 44 had been constructed in 1992 but had not had its first
out-of-service internal inspection performed until 2012. Since Tank 44 did not have a corrosion
rate established, Sunoco needed to perform an internal inspection on Tank 44 in 2009, 10 years
after PHMSA adopted API 653 in 1999. Sunoco allegedly failed to perform an internal
inspection within this required time frame.
Finally, the type of liner for Tank 2703 was unknown. The last internal inspection of the tank
was performed on September 15, 1995, by the previous owner. The 1995 inspection report
stated that there was internal corrosion found on the tank bottom, but no corrosion rate had been
established. Sunoco scheduled the next internal inspection for 2015, an interval of 20 years,
even though Sunoco did not know what liner was applied during the tank’s repairs. Since the
material and thickness of the liner were not known and the corrosion rate was also unknown, the
inspection interval could not be more than 10 years and therefore Sunoco needed to perform an
internal inspection by 2005. Sunoco failed to perform an internal inspection within this 10-year
interval.
Respondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) and (d) by failing to
perform internal inspections within the maximum interval of 10 years prescribed by API 653.



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 5
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a), which states:
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that
would corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect of the
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take adequate steps
to mitigate internal corrosion.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a) by failing to have
procedures for mitigating internal corrosion by identifying the potential for internal corrosion at
low points, changes in elevation, sharp bends, infrequently-used piping, pump stations, and
“dead legs” and by assessing, monitoring, and, mitigating the effects of internal corrosion at
those identified locations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco’s procedures addressing
internal corrosion were developed and implemented in 2011 and were designed to “mitigate
facility releases and improve asset reliability and availability.” The procedures specifically
mentioned that the purpose of the plan was to assess and learn the general condition of both
active and idle piping within the facility. While this manual was put in place to require internal-
corrosion assessments, the plan allegedly lacked specific and detailed information regarding the
actions necessary to perform adequate assessments on the facility piping. The procedure was
under revision at the time of the PHMSA inspection and a draft had been prepared to expand the
scope and application of the procedure. The procedure had not, however, been finalized or
implemented.
Finally, the Notice alleged that Sunoco’s existing procedure that addressed internal corrosion in
dead legs and low-flow pipelines was issued in 2013. The Dead Leg Removals and Line
Flushing Procedure OPER-PR-0008 was created to determine the extent of lines that would
require attention as part of the integrity program based on operating conditions. The procedure
required identification of dead legs and actions necessary to manage those identified pipelines.
The procedure, as written, allegedly did not include provisions for reevaluation after changes or
modifications had been made within a station or on the pipelines that could affect its operating
conditions. According to the Notice, Sunoco’s pipeline system had had several accidents where
releases occurred due to internal corrosion, including several in dead legs and low spots in its
facilities, with eight reportable accidents occurring on terminal piping since 2010.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a) by failing to have
procedures for mitigating internal corrosion, by identifying the potential for internal corrosion at
low points, changes in elevation, sharp bends, infrequently-used piping, pump stations, and dead
legs and by assessing, monitoring and, mitigating the effects of internal corrosion at those
identified locations.
CONTESTED
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b)(1), which states:



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 6
§ 195.401 General requirements.
(a)…
(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to
the following requirements:
(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers
any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline
system, it must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if
the condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to
persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the
system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b)(1) by failing to correct,
within a reasonable time, conditions that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline
system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to correct or repair two conditions
that could adversely affect the safe operation of its breakout tanks.
First, during the PHMSA field inspection of Sunoco’s Colorado City facility in July 2014, Tank
5 was allegedly found to have approximately 10 feet of the ringwall foundation severely
damaged. The ringwall had been damaged during the tank’s out-of-service repairs in 2011,
which was noted on Sunoco’s “Tank 5 Out of Service Post-Repair Report” in December 2011.
Sunoco, however, did not repair the ringwall foundation until August 2014, after the PHMSA
inspector had inquired during the 2014 field inspection about the ringwall’s damage. The Notice
alleged that Sunoco did not correct the condition “within a reasonable time” because it waited
two years and seven months to conduct the repair.
Second, during the PHMSA field inspections at Sunoco’s Ringgold and Corsicana facilities in
September 2014, Tank 2703 and Tank 2602 were allegedly found to have half-inch cracks on
their ringwall foundations. The crack on Tank 2703 had been discovered by Sunoco during the
tank’s In-Service Inspection in February 2014. The cracks were repaired on October 25, 2014,
after being noted during the PHMSA field inspection in September 2014. The Notice alleged
that Sunoco had failed to correct these conditions that could adversely affect the safe operation
of its pipeline system “within a reasonable time” because it waited eight months to complete the
repair.
In its Response, Sunoco acknowledged that the damage to the concrete ringwalls was not
addressed at the time of the inspections in July and September 2014, respectively. However, it
contended that the damage to the ringwalls was superficial in nature and did not pose any
significant or adverse risk to the safe operation of its pipeline system.
The company further stated that at the time of the 2011 post-repair inspection of Tank 5, the
damage to the tank’s ringwall did not pose a concern to the structural integrity or the safe
operation of the tank. A review of the tank-settlement measurements from inspection reports
conducted on Tank 5 in 2006 and again in 2011 indicated that there was no evidence of active
settlement and that the deflection and settlement readings were within API allowable limits. The



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 7
shell-settlement survey was again confirmed as having no unacceptable settlement or deflection
during the January 2016 inspection report.
With respect to the ringwall cracks observed on Tanks 2703 at Ringgold and 2602 at Corsicana,
Sunoco likewise contended that the cracks in the ringwalls did not pose a concern to the
structural integrity or safe operation of the tanks. Sunoco argued that, in general, surface cracks
on concrete ringwalls do not pose a serious threat to the stability of a tank unless enough of a
ringwall section is missing so as to create a large enough area where the downward forces of the
tank shell can cause a significant out-of-plane deflection.
Although the company’s “API 653 In-Service Inspection Report for Tank 2703” noted a crack in
the ringwall, the condition was noted to be appropriate for “consideration” for repair, not as a
compliance deficiency. Sunoco stated that consideration was given to the nature of the crack,
and it was determined that it did not pose a serious threat to the stability or the continued safe
operation of the tank.
Sunoco further argued that it took steps to remediate the conditions of the ringwall of each tank
and provided documentation to OPS subsequent to the repairs while the inspection was ongoing.
It argued that the phrase “within a reasonable time” is subjective and discretionary, and that
based on its evaluation of the seriousness of the cracks, it took appropriate action in compliance
with the pipeline safety regulations. Sunoco stated that its internal subject-matter experts at no
time concluded that the ringwall damage posed any significant or adverse risk to the safe
operation of the pipeline system. Accordingly, Sunoco requested that this Item and the
associated Proposed Compliance Order be withdrawn, as well as the associated proposed civil
penalty.
In its recommendation, OPS disagreed with Sunoco’s response that the damage and cracks found
on the tanks were “superficial in nature and did not pose any significant or adverse risk to the
safe operation of its pipeline system,” and that the phrase “reasonable time” was subjective and
discretionary with respect to the timing of the repairs. OPS stated that a “reasonable time”
needed to be defined in an operator’s procedures, and that, as seen in Item 1 of the Notice,
Sunoco’s procedures failed to do so. According to OPS, Sunoco acknowledged that its DOT
Maintenance Manual Procedure 195.432 should define the term “reasonable” with respect to the
timing of repairs for conditions found during tank inspection, including monthly, external,
ultrasound (UT), and internal inspections.2 Moreover, Sunoco’s own “In-Service Inspection
Report for Tank 2703” stated: “There was moderate to severe cracking in the concrete,”
contradicting Sunoco’s claim that the damage was superficial.
Analysis
I have reviewed the record and find that Sunoco failed to repair the two conditions within a
reasonable time. Section 195.401(b)(1) requires each operator to correct a discovered condition
2 Response, at 3.



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 8
within a reasonable time if the condition could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline
system. In this case, for Tank 5, the “HMT Final API 653 Out-of-Service Inspection Report,
Tank No. 5” included photographs demonstrating the damage to the ringwall foundation.3 The
company’s inspection report also noted that “minor cracks should be sealed to minimize further
degradation.”4 Photographs by the PHMSA inspector of Tank 5 taken on July 30, 2014, 5 Tank
2703 at the Ringold facility taken on September 17, 2014,6 and Tank 2602 taken on September
18, 2014,7 all reveal the extent of the damage to the ringwall.
Section 3.2.1 of Sunoco’s own “In-Service Inspection Report for Tank 2703” stated: “There was
moderate to severe cracking in the concrete. Consider repairing the cracks in the concrete.” 8
The report included a photograph showing the severity of the crack.9 I find the contemporaneous
photographs and Sunoco’s own “In-Service Inspection Report for Tank 2703” persuasive as to
the severity of the damage to the ringwall. The report also characterized the cracks as “moderate
to severe,” not superficial. The evidence in the photographs and Sunoco’s own reports all
support a finding that the cracks were not insignificant or insubstantial.
Cracks in a ringwall can be potential access points for moisture and water seepage that could
eventually result in corrosion of the reinforcing steel and further damage to the ringwall.
Accordingly, I find the damage to ringwalls at issue in this matter could adversely affect the safe
operation of Respondent’s pipeline system and therefore needed to be repaired within a
reasonable time frame to prevent them from becoming an even bigger safety issue.
Sunoco knew about the damaged ringwalls but failed to make repairs for a time period ranging
from almost a year to over two-and-a-half years. Given the extent of the cracking, I find that it
was not reasonable for Sunoco to wait this amount of time before making these repairs.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.401(b)(1) by failing to correct within a reasonable time conditions that could adversely
affect the safe operation of its pipeline system.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
3 Violation Report, Ex. B, at 115 (“HMT Final API 653 Out-of-Service Inspection Report, Tank No. 5, January 2001
and December 7, 2011, Section 8 Post Repair Photographs”).
4 Id., Ex. B, at 6 (“HMT Final API 653 Out-of-Service Inspection Report, Tank No. 5, January 2001 and December
7, 2011).
5 Id.,, Ex. B, at 127-28.
6 Id., Ex. B, at 135-36.
7 Id., Ex. B, at 189.
8 Id., Ex. B, at 143 (Tank 2703 API 653 In-Service Inspection Report by Mott Tank (Feb. 26, 2014)).
9 Id., Ex. B, at 185 (Tank 2703 API 653 In-Service Inspection Report by Mott Tank (Feb. 26, 2014)).



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 9
WITHDRAWN
Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance? (1)
An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.452 (a)…
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection:
(i) A written integrity management program in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any
modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made,
variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the
integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l) by failing to maintain
records to support actions taken to implement and evaluate each element of its integrity
management program established under 49 C.F.R. Subpart F. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Sunoco failed to provide records of the field changes made to the safety-related set points
when a 20 percent pressure reduction took place because of anomalies identified by in-line
inspection runs.
In its Response, Sunoco submitted Management of Change records (MOCs), along with Action
Items and Point-to-Point Short Forms for each MOC referenced in Item 6. Sunoco indicated the
creation of the MOC, along with the completion of the associated Field and SCADA Action
Items, served as the documentation required to show that field-related set points had been
changed and Point-to-Point verification with the field device and SCADA screen had taken
place.
OPS reviewed Sunoco’s submitted Action Items and Point-to-Point Short Forms for each MOC,
which had not been provided during the PHMSA inspection. The documentation was reviewed
and accepted by OPS as demonstrating that the changes to safety-related set points that had been
verified. OPS therefore recommended that this Item be withdrawn.
Accordingly, Item 6 is withdrawn from the Notice, along with the associated compliance order
and proposed civil penalty.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 10
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 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; 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. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $169,200 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.56(a), for failing to file safety-related condition reports with PHMSA within five working
days after determining conditions existed that met the criteria of a safety-related condition.
Respondent neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying
elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.56(a), which amount has already been paid.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.401(b)(1), for failing to correct conditions that could adversely affect the safe operation of
its pipeline system within a reasonable time. As noted above, I found that Sunoco failed to
repair cracks in the ringwall foundations of two breakout tanks in a timely manner.
With regard to the penalty assessment criteria noted in the Violation Report, I find that the
nature, circumstances, gravity, and culpability factors have been considered appropriately and I
confirm the proposed penalty. In particular, cracks in a ringwall can be potential access points
for moisture and water seepage that could eventually result in corrosion of the reinforcing steel
and further damage to the ringwall. Damage to ringwalls need to be repaired in a reasonable
time frame to prevent them from becoming an even bigger safety issue. The Violation Report
acknowledged that pipeline safety was minimally affected by Respondent’s violation; as a result,
this mitigating factor was already taken into account in the proposed penalty. Based upon the
foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a), for failing to follow its written procedures for tank maintenance. Sunoco argued
that the proposed penalty should be reduced because the proposed civil penalty “does not
appropriately reflect assessment considerations.”10 Sunoco argued that, compared to Item 2 of
the Notice, the proposed civil penalty for Item 3 was disproportionately higher and that the
violation resulted in “no injuries or fatalities, no explosion(s), no wildlife impact, and no water
contamination and, accordingly, no impact on health, and little (if any) impact on the
environment, which was short term and promptly remediated.”11
10 Response, at 5.
11 Id.



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 11
I disagree. Having reviewed the record, I find that the penalty amount proposed in the notice is
warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation and Respondent’s
level of culpability. PHMSA calculates each penalty individually, based on the unique facts and
circumstances of the specific violation, using the same penalty criteria and logarithm. The
higher penalty for this violation, as opposed to Item 2, is based, at least in part, on the fact that
this violation compromised pipeline safety or integrity to a greater extent. A more serious
gravity factor warrants a higher penalty amount.
Sunoco has failed to provide any justification for reducing the proposed penalty based on the
assessment criteria. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $36,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.432(b) and (d), for failing to perform internal inspections within the maximum interval of
10 years prescribed by API 653. Sunoco did not contest this allegation of violation but argued
that the penalty should be reduced because the out-of-service internal inspection reports for
Tanks 2720 and 42 were not available during the PHMSA inspection, but were included as part
of the Response. Sunoco stated that Tank 2720’s 2005 internal inspection report established a
corrosion rate on the prior tank bottom. Sunoco also stated that when the new tank bottom was
installed in 2005, a new internal inspection interval was calculated to be 20 years, using the
established corrosion rate of the old bottom that had been replaced. As for Tank 42, Sunoco
stated that it was evaluating repair records “associated with the December 14, 1995 internal
inspection…..to validate the internal inspection interval of 20 years.”12
I reject Sunoco’s argument for a penalty reduction. As for Tank 2720, Sunoco set a new
inspection rate of 20 years that was based on the established corrosion rate for the old tank
bottom. Since Sunoco replaced the tank bottom with a new bottom, the corrosion rate from the
old bottom could not be used for calculating the internal inspection interval. The new tank
bottom, however, had an unknown corrosion rate, so the internal inspection interval would be 10
years and the internal inspection for Tank 2720 should have been performed in 2005. As for
Tank 42, the Response did not include any documentation that would validate a 20-year internal
inspection interval.
Considering that the Notice listed nine breakout tanks, for which Sunoco admittedly failed to
perform internal inspections within the maximum interval of 10 years, as prescribed by API 653,
I see no basis for a penalty reduction. Having reviewed the record, I find that the penalty amount
proposed in the notice is warranted considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the
violation and Respondent’s level of culpability.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $37,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) and (d).
Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(l) by failing to maintain documents to support actions taken to implement and
12 Response, at 7.



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 12
evaluate each element of its integrity management program. This item has been withdrawn and,
therefore, there is no penalty associated with it.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total reduced civil penalty of $141,700, of which
$33,700 has already been paid.
Payment of the remaining civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal
regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 79169. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the remaining penalty of $108,000 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
district court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 4, 6, and 7 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b)(1), 195.432(b) and (d), 195.452(l), and 195.579(a),
respectively. Since Item 6 has been withdrawn, the associated provisions in the Proposed
Compliance Order for that item are not included.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids
or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety
standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and
49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance
with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.401(b)(1) (Item 2), Respondent must further
define in its procedures reasonable time frames for the repair of conditions that may
be found during tank inspections, including monthly, external, UT, and internal
inspections of tanks.
Sunoco submitted procedure 195.432 Inspection of In-Service Breakout Tanks to
address part of this item in the Compliance Order. Sunoco addressed the integrity
inspection plan for tanks with concrete bottoms or liners in Section 195.432(3)(VII).



CPF No. 4-2016-5020
Page 13
OPS reviewed Sunoco’s submitted 195.432 procedure, which addresses part of the
Compliance Order for Item 2. The Section 195.432(3)(VII) Sunoco submitted was
unchanged from the previous procedure PHMSA had reviewed during the inspection,
and is not acceptable. Therefore, Sunoco must resubmit amended procedures to
comply with this Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(b), (d) (Item 4), Respondent must
perform internal inspections on its breakout tanks that have exceeded 10 years, as
required by § 195.432, and must also perform internal inspections on tanks 2601,
2603, 42, and 2720 as soon as possible or provide the previous actual internal
inspection reports to verify internal inspections were performed. Sunoco must also
develop and implement a bottom-integrity inspection plan for its tanks that have
concrete liners and reevaluate the time interval for tanks with unknown corrosion
rates. Sunoco must provide the Southwest Region with the integrity inspection plan,
and a plan and time frame for performing internal inspections as required.
Since the time of the PHMSA inspection, Sunoco stated that it had made revisions to
its Dead Leg Removals and Line Flushing, and its Facility Integrity Program
procedures. Sunoco submitted t
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 71749