{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420175021","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":"2017-08-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b)(1), 195.452(h)(1)(i), 195.452(h)(4)(ii), 195.452(h)(4)(iii), 195.505(g), 195.56(a), 195.573(a)(1), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175021","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420175021","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b)(1),  195.452(h)(1)(i),  195.452(h)(4)(ii),  195.452(h)(4)(iii),  195.505(g),  195.56(a),  195.573(a)(1),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2017-08-14 and is reported as closed as of 2019-04-02. Proposed civil penalty: $129,800. Assessed civil penalty: $90,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420175021_Closure Letter_04022019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Closure%20Letter_04022019.pdf\n\n420175021_Closure Letter_04022019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Closure%20Letter_04022019_text.pdf\n\n420175021_Corrected Final Order_12202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Corrected%20Final%20Order_12202018.pdf\n\n420175021_Corrected Final Order_12202018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Corrected%20Final%20Order_12202018_text.pdf\n\n420175021_NOPV PCP PCO_ 08142017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_%2008142017_text.pdf\n\n420175021_NOPV PCP PCO_08142017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08142017.pdf\n\n420175021_Operator Response to the Notice_09222017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Operator%20Response%20to%20the%20Notice_09222017.pdf\n\n420175021_Closure Letter_04022019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 2, 2019\nKelcy L. Warren\nChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas, 75225\nCPF 4-2017-5021\nDear Mr. Warren:\nOn December 20, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to your subsidiary, Sunoco Pipeline, LP a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420175021_Corrected Final Order_12202018_text.pdf\n\nDecember 20, 2018\nMr. Kelcy L. Warren\nChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, TX 75225\nRe: CPF No. 4-2017-5021\nDear Mr. Warren:\nEnclosed please find the Corrected Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your\nsubsidiary, Sunoco Pipeline, LP. The Final Order issued in this case on September 18, 2018\nmiscalculated the total civil penalty assessment and the balance that was still due. I apologize\nfor these computational errors, which have been rectified in this Corrected Final Order. The new\norder makes no other substantive changes to the Final Order.\nThe Corrected Final Order makes findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of\n$90,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount by three\nseparate wire transfers, dated October 4, 2017, October 4, 2018, and October 9, 2018,\nrespectively.\nWhen the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director,\nSouthwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Corrected Final Order\nby certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Ryan Coffey, Executive Vice President of Operators, Energy Transfer Partners, LP,\n1 Fluor Daniel Drive, Bldg. A, Level 3, Sugar Land, TX 77478\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 )\n)\n)\nSunoco Pipeline, LP, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2017-5021\nCORRECTED FINAL ORDER\nFrom September 6 through October 14, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Sunoco\nPipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent), in Texas.1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP, a subsidiary of Energy\nTransfer Partners, LP, operates the Nederland to Kilgore hazardous liquid pipeline in Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 14, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warning items pursuant\nto 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $129,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further\naction but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP, on behalf of Sunoco, responded to the Notice by letter dated\nSeptember 22, 2017 (Response).2 The company contested several of the allegations of violation\nand provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Sunoco partially paid\nthe proposed civil penalty, in the amount of $35,500, by wire transfer dated October 4, 2017.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nOn September 18, 2018, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this case that incorrectly calculated\n1 Inspection locations included Longview, Goodrich, Aldine and Houston, Texas.\n2 On September 7, 2017, Sunoco requested a time extension to respond to the Notice, which was granted by PHMSA\non September 13, 2017.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 2\n$54,500 as the total civil penalty assessed for the findings of violation, rather than the balance\ndue. It incorrectly stated the balance owed by Energy Transfer Partners, LP, was $19,000. This\nCorrected Final Order replaces and supersedes the September 18, 2018 Final Order to correct the\ntotal civil penalty assessment as being $90,000. Respondent made additional partial payments of\n$19,000 and $35,500 by wire transfers on October 4, 2018 and October 9, 2018, respectively.\nCombined with the first partial payment of $35,500 on October 4, 2017, Respondent has now\npaid the full penalty amount of $90,000.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a), which states:\n§ 195.56 Filing safety-related condition reports.\n(a) Each report of a safety-related condition under § 195.55(a) must be filed\n(received by OPS) within 5 working days (not including Saturday, Sunday, or\nFederal Holidays) after the day a representative of the operator first determines\nthat the condition exists, but not later than 10 working days after the day a\nrepresentative of the operator discovers the condition. Separate conditions may\nbe described in a single report if they are closely related. Reports may be\ntransmitted by electronic mail to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov, or\nby facsimile at (202) 366-7128.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a) by failing to file a report of a\nsafety-related condition under § 195.55(a) within five working days after determining that the\ncondition existed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that in October 2014 and February 2016,\nSunoco issued two 20-percent pressure reductions on the Goodrich to Longview segment of its\npipeline due to the discovery of two safety-related conditions that were reportable under\n§ 195.55(a)(6) but failed to file reports with PHMSA.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a) by failing to file two\nsafety-related reports for safety-related conditions on its pipeline.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b)(1), which states:\n§ 195.401 General requirements.\n(a) . . .\n(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to\nthe following requirements:\n(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator\ndiscovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its\npipeline system, it must correct the condition within a reasonable time.\nHowever, if the condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 3\nhazard to persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part\nof the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b)(1) by failing to correct,\nwithin a reasonable time, a condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed, for approximately two years, to take action to\nrepair a section of buried pipe that was exposed and sagging due to a washout.3 While\nRespondent contended that the evidence presented by PHMSA was not conclusive to show the\ncondition existed for more than five years, Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b)(1) by failing to correct, within a reasonable time, a condition\nthat could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions,\nan operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those\nthat could reduce a pipeline’s integrity. . .\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation –\n(i) . . .\n(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph\n(h)(4)(i) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and\nremediation of the following conditions within 60 days of discovery of\ncondition . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii) by failing to schedule\nevaluation and remediation of several anomalous conditions within 60 days of discovery of the\nconditions. Specifically, the Notice alleged that after discovering seven 60-day conditions on its\nDouglass to Longview segment on October 27, 2014, Sunoco failed to remediate them within 60\ndays.\nIn its Response, Sunoco contested this allegation of violation, stating that although the\nremediation dates for these seven 60-day conditions fell outside the regulatory time frame, the\npipeline was not in service transporting hazardous liquid at the time. Because the line was not in\nservice, Sunoco argued that it was permitted to exceed the regulatory time frame.\nThe ostensible basis for Sunoco’s defense is a separate regulation, § 195.452(h)(1)(i), which\nrequires an operator to notify PHMSA if the operator cannot meet the schedule for evaluation\n3 Although Sunoco inspected the segment on September 21, 2016, and aerial patrol reports for the preceding three\nmonths did not indicate that the pipe was exposed, PHMSA reviewed Google Earth satellite imagery for this location\nand found evidence that the pipe had been exposed since at least 2009. Notice at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 4\nand remediation and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in operating pressure.\nRespondent argued that under § 195.452(h)(1)(i), an operator may exceed the schedule for\nevaluation and remediation in § 195.452(h)(4)(ii) if an additional measure of safety can be\nprovided by temporarily reducing the operating pressure of the pipeline. Here, Respondent\nnoted, the line was not in service, had been purged of hazardous liquid, and was filled with\nnitrogen under a low pressure. Sunoco argued that these additional safety measures permitted\nthe company to exceed the 60-day regulatory time frame for remediation and Sunoco was not\nrequired to notify PHMSA that it could not meet the schedule. Respondent also noted that when\nthe line became operational again on July 27, 2015, all seven of the 60-day anomalies had been\nrepaired.\nI disagree. Under § 195.452(h)(4)(ii), Sunoco was required to timely schedule evaluation and\nremediation on seven 60-day conditions on its line. When it did not meet this schedule, the\ncompany was required, under a separate requirement in § 195.452(h)(3), to explain the reasons\nwhy it could not meet the schedule and how the changed schedule did not jeopardize public\nsafety or the environment. Sunoco, however, failed to do either. Instead, it relied on its\ntemporary pressure reduction to contend that it did not need to notify PHMSA under\n§ 195.452(h)(1)(i) of its inability to meet the remediation schedule. 4\nRespondent’s argument, however, is flawed because it fails to recognize the purpose and intent\nof the regulation, which is to require evaluation and remediation of anomalous conditions that\ncan potentially reduce a pipeline’s integrity, regardless of whether the line is in service or not.\nPHMSA has made clear on numerous occasions that operators must protect “inactive” or “idle”\npipelines to the same extent as if they are fully operational.5 Further, the text of the notification\nrequirement in § 195.452(h)(1)(i) clearly does not exempt an operator from the other integrity-\nmanagement requirements cited above. Finally, PHMSA has provided fair notice to operators\nthat just because a pipeline “has been subjected to prior reductions in maximum operating\npressure,” this does not exempt them from integrity management requirements.6\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n4 See also, PHMSA Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2016–05) (Aug. 11, 2016) (noting that “owners or operators planning\nto defer certain activities for purged pipelines should coordinate the deferral in advance with regulators”).\n5 See, e.g., In the Matter of Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2012-5023 (May 6, 2013)\n(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (noting that “[i]f a pipeline has not been abandoned in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.59, then it is considered to be active and an operator must ensure that the pipeline\ncomplies with all applicable requirements of Part 195”); see also In the Matter of Williams Olefins Feedstock\nPipelines, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2017-5001 (July 24, 2017) (available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (stating that although an operator noted it would complete a total\ninspection and rehabilitation of its pipeline, including valve replacement, atmospheric corrosion remediation, and in-\nline inspection prior to placing the idled line back into service, it was in violation of § 195.583(c) by failing to\nprovide protection against corrosion as required by § 195.581 upon discovering evidence of atmospheric corrosion\nduring several valve inspections. The Final Order noted that “PHMSA regulations do not recognize idle status, and\nconsider pipelines to be either active and fully subject to all relevant parts of the safety regulations or abandoned.”).\n6 PHMSA Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management FAQ 7.23, available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/iim/\nfaqs htm#a (last accessed May 30, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 5\n§ 195.452(h)(4)(ii) by failing to schedule evaluation and remediation of 60-day conditions within\n60 days. However, since the line was purged at the time, I find that such mitigating\ncircumstances do warrant a penalty reduction, which is discussed more fully in the “Assessment\nof Penalty” section below.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1)(iii), which\nstates:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions,\nan operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that\ncould reduce a pipeline’s integrity. . .\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation\n(i) . . .\n(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph\n(h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and\nremediation of the following within 180 days of discovery of the condition:\n. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii) by failing to schedule\nevaluation and remediation of several conditions within 180 days of discovery of the conditions.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that, after discovering three 180-day conditions on its Douglass\nto OTI segment on December 18, 2012, and one 180-day condition on its Douglas to Longview\nsegment on October 27, 2014, Sunoco failed to remediate them within 180 days.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation but provided additional information that it\nbelieved warranted a reduction in the proposed civil penalty. I address that argument more fully\nin the “Assessment of Penalty” section below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii) by failing to timely remediate 180-day conditions within 180 days\nof discovery.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . .\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual’s qualifications is needed: . . . .\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 6\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by failing to have and\nfollow a written qualification program that included provisions to identify covered tasks and the\nintervals at which evaluation of an individual’s qualification is needed. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Sunoco’s Operator Qualification Plan (OQ Plan) set a standard 36-month evaluation\ninterval for all non-welding covered tasks, except for ones that extended beyond 36 months, and\nfailed to consider intervals shorter than 36 months if the task required it. It further alleged that\nAppendix C of the OQ Plan included a list of covered tasks with a 36-month requalification\ninterval and no task showed a documented justification for the requalification interval used.\nSunoco contested this allegation of violation, noting that it had adopted the recommendations of\nAPI’s Consortium of Operator Qualification (COOQ), which recommends a standard 36-month\ninterval for conducting periodic reevaluations. Sunoco noted that this standard interval was\nconsistent with API Recommended Practice 1161, “API Recommended Practice for Pipeline\nOperator Qualification (OQ),” 3rd Edition, January 2014, which the company claimed “discusses\nthat an operator has the option of utilizing evaluation intervals established by an industry\nassociation or other entity or developing their own intervals, but that an evaluation interval of 36\nmonths is recommended based on current practice.”7\nSection 195.505(g) requires operators to identify “covered tasks and the intervals at which\nevaluation of the individual’s qualifications is needed.” In other words, operators must\ndetermine requalification intervals for each covered task. As noted above, Sunoco’s OQ Plan\nlists requalification intervals for covered tasks in Appendix C of its OQ Plan and all non-welding\ncovered task have a requalification interval of 36 months, not to exceed 39 months. I find\ninsufficient evidence to prove that Sunoco has violated the plain meaning of the regulation in its\nidentification of the intervals at which reevaluation is needed.\nWhile the Notice further alleged a violation for failure to “require justification for the interval\nestablished,” I fail to see how this allegation is derived from either the text or the intent of the\nregulation. Section 195.505(g) does not describe the extent to which operators must justify\ninterval selections. I note that PHMSA has issued guidance advising operators using an “off-the-\nshelf” qualification program that they “must understand the basis on which reevaluation intervals\nhave been specified.”8 PHMSA has also issued an Advisory Bulletin alerting the industry that\n“requalification intervals established by operators must reflect the relevant factors including the\ncomplexity, criticality, and frequency of the task, and be justified by appropriate\ndocumentation.”9\nThere is nothing in the language of § 195.505(g), however, that requires each operator to conduct\nsuch an analysis itself for each covered task. In this case, Sunoco notes in its OQ Plan that it\n7 Response, at 5. See, API RP 1161, Recommended Practice for Pipeline Operator Qualification (OQ), Section 9.2\n(January 2014).\n8 PHMSA OQ FAQ 1.1., available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/oq/faqs htm#13 (last accessed May 25, 2018).\n9 PHMSA Advisory Bulletin 04-05, Implementation of Operator Qualification (OQ) Requirements Mandated by the\nPipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Nov. 19, 2004).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 7\nadopted the COOQ recommendations for requalification intervals, which is consistent with other\nindustry standards, including API Recommended Practice 1161.10 I find no evidence in the\nrecord that Sunoco failed to understand the basis for the requalification intervals it adopted.11\nMoreover, Respondent’s program requires separate justification only if a requalification extends\nbeyond 36 months.\nTherefore, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by adopting a standard\n36-month interval for conducting required periodic reevaluations. This violation is hereby\nwithdrawn.\nI would note, however, that PHMSA encourages operators to adopt and follow a rigorous OQ\nprogram that includes a process used for establishing appropriate requalification intervals that\nrecognize the difficulty of each individual task, its safety importance, the potential for loss of\nknowledge of the task over time, manufacturers’ recommendations, and other critical factors. In\nmany cases, this may necessitate unique intervals for various tasks within a particular operator’s\npipeline system.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.12 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\n10 See PHMSA OQ FAQ 5.6, available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/oq/faqs.htm (last accessed May 30, 2018)\n(noting that “determination and justification of reevaluation interval should consider existing consensus standards\nand industry practice…”).\n11 See Sunoco’s OQ Plan, Section 5.3 Re-qualification Frequency, at 11 (describing the company’s adoption of the\nCOOQ recommendation) (Oct. 22, 2015); see also, In the Matter of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, Final Order,\nCPF No. 2-2015-1005 (Aug. 24, 2017) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (withdrawing the\nproposed violation of § 192.805(g) for the company’s alleged failure to demonstrate that its OQ requalification\nintervals were individually justified. The Final Order found that the regulation does not require operators themselves\nto justify requalification intervals and that the company’s OQ program provided a basis for requalification intervals\nby adopting the Veriforce OQ Program, an “off-the-shelf” OQ plan, that was consistent with PHMSA guidance and\nindustry standards, including ASME B31Q and that identified covered tasks and corresponding requalification\nintervals based on multiple factors as set forth in its OQ plan.).\n12 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 8\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $129,800 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.56(a), for failing to file a report of a safety-related condition under § 195.55(a) within five\nworking days after determining that the condition existed. Respondent did not contest this item\nand paid the penalty by wire transfer, dated October 4, 2017.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(4)(ii), for failing to timely schedule evaluation and remediation on seven 60-day\nconditions. Sunoco contested this item, arguing that because the line was idled under a low\npressure nitrogen blanket, safety was minimally affected. I find that even though this does not\nnegate or justify the violation, Sunoco’s interpretation of the requirement was reasonable,\nalthough incorrect, and warrants some adjustment of the proposed penalty given that the pipeline\nwas purged. Therefore, I am utilizing the “good faith” credit allowed under PHMSA’s penalty-\nassessment criteria for this violation and reducing the penalty to $14,800 for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $62,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(4)(iii), for failing to timely schedule evaluation and remediation of four 180-day\nconditions. In its Response, Sunoco stated that there were only three 180-day conditions\nrequiring remediation. After reviewing Sunoco’s Response, I agree that one of the anomalies did\nnot meet the 180-day condition criteria. Therefore, the number of instances of violation for this\nItem should be three, instead of four. Although the violation persisted for well beyond the\nregulatory deadline for remediation, the line was idled under a low-pressure nitrogen blanket. As\na result, pipeline safety was minimally affected. Further, I find that Sunoco had a reasonable,\nalthough incorrect, interpretation of the requirement for not repairing these anomalies within the\nregulatory timeframe, given that the pipeline was purged. Therefore, I am utilizing the “good\nfaith” credit allowed under PHMSA’s penalty-assessment criteria for this violation and reducing\nthe penalty to $39,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total reduced civil penalty of $90,000. The full penalty\namount of $90,000 has already been paid by Respondent by wire transfer with three separate\npayments dated October 4, 2017, October 4, 2018, and October 9, 2018, respectively.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 6 in the Notice, for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b)(1) and 195.505(g), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601.\nItem 6 has been withdrawn, and therefore the corresponding compliance terms are also\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 9\nwithdrawn. With regard to the violation of § 195.401(b)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has submitted\nmaintenance records, corresponding sketches, and photographs showing that a permanent repair\nto the exposed section of the pipe has been made. Sunoco stated that this repair was completed\nby November 14, 2016. However, in its Recommendation, the Region noted ongoing concern\nwith the safety of this pipeline due to its location in a riverbed. The Region stated that, although\nsupport had been added to prevent the pipe from sagging, the supports do not appear to “make\npermanent repairs to restore it to a safe condition,” as provided in the Proposed Compliance\nOrder, since it does not protect the pipe from movement in other directions.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.401(b)(1) (Item 2), Respondent must submit\nto PHMSA an engineering analysis of the repair to confirm the safety of the repair\nwithin 90 days of issuance of the Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3, 7, and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1)(i) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to timely\nremediate an anomalous condition it discovered through integrity assessment or\ninformation analysis, and to notify PHMSA when it could not meet the\nremediation schedule and provide safety through a temporary reduction in\noperating pressure;\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5021\nPage 10\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct\ntests on its cathodically protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether cathodic protection\nrequired by Subpart H complies with § 195.571; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain, for at\nleast five years, a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,\ninspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by Subpart H of Part\n195 in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures\nor that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nCorrected Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200\nNew Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to\nthe Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of\nservice of this Corrected Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Corrected Final Order are effective upon\nservice in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 20, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420175021_NOPV PCP PCO_ 08142017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 14, 2017\nMr. David Chalson\nV.P. Of Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n4041 Market Street\nAston, PA 19014\nCPF 4-2017-5021\nDear Mr. Chalson:\nOn September 6, 2016 through October 14, 2016, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code inspected procedures, records, and facilities for your Nederland to\nKilgore pipeline in Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §195.56 Filing safety-related condition reports.\n(a) Each report of a safety-related condition under § 195.55(a) must be filed\n(received by the Administrator) in writing within 5 working days (not\nincluding Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays) after the day a\n\n\n\nrepresentative of the operator first determines that the condition exists, but\nnot later than 10 working conditions may be described in a single report if\nthey are closely related. To file a report by facsimile (fax), dial (202) 366-\n7128.\nSunoco failed to file safety-related condition reports with PHMSA within five working days after\ndetermining conditions existed that met the criteria of a safety-related condition as per\n195.55(a)(6). Sunoco issued two 20% operating pressure reductions on the Goodrich to Longview\nsegment due to identification of a safety related condition. In both instances no safety-related\ncondition report was filed with PHMSA.\nOn April 29, 2014, and May 13, 2014 Sunoco performed an integrity assessment on the 10”\nGoodrich to Longview segment using a deformation and magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inline\ninspection tool. On October 27, 2014 Sunoco received a final report from an inline inspection\nperformed by a third party which detailed multiple anomalies in the “immediate repair” category.\nOn October 29, 2014 Sunoco issued a 20% operating pressure reduction on this segment via MOC-\n7673. On February 19, 2016 Sunoco again issued a 20% operating pressure reduction via MOC-\n10204 to repair an overlooked 180-day anomaly. In both cases Sunoco failed to file a safety-\nrelated condition with PHMSA.\n2. §195.401 General requirements.\n(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the\nfollowing requirements:\n(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any\ncondition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system,\nit must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the\ncondition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons\nor property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the system\nuntil it has corrected the unsafe condition.\nSunoco failed to take action to repair a section of buried pipe that was exposed and sagging due to\nwash out. This condition existed for more than five years.\nDuring a valve inspection on October 12, 2016 PHMSA inspectors noticed a section of pipeline\nlocated near a river bend that was exposed and noticeably sagging due to washout. Operator\npersonnel stated that it must have been underwater for a long time. This section is approximately\n180 feet from the valve station which was inspected by operator on September 21, 2016. Aerial\npatrol reports for the preceding three months did not indicate any observation or notes regarding\nthe exposed section. PHMSA reviewed Google Earth maps for this location and found photographs\nshowing that the pipe has been exposed since at least 2009.\n2\n\n\n\n3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all\nanomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity\nassessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator\nmust evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could\nreduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that\nthe remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose\na threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply\nwith § 195.422 when making a repair.\n(i) Temporary pressure reduction. An operator must notify PHMSA, in\naccordance with paragraph (m) of this section, if the operator cannot meet\nthe schedule for evaluation and remediation required under paragraph\n(h)(3) of this section and cannot provide safety through a temporary\nreduction in operating pressure.\nSunoco failed notify PHMSA that they did not meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation\nas required by §195.452 (h)(4)(iii) for a 180 day anomaly identified on the Douglass to Longview\nsegment. Safety was not provided by a temporary pressure reduction between July 27, 2015 and\nFebruary 19, 2016.\nDuring inspection Sunoco provided a dig sheet showing that a 180 day anomaly on the Goodrich\nto Longview segment had not been remediated within the required timeframe. Sunoco operated\nthis line without providing safety through a pressure restriction until MOC-10204 was issued on\nFebruary 19, 2016. No notification was made to PHMSA.\n4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation\n(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this\nsection, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the\nfollowing conditions within 60 days of discovery of condition.\nSunoco failed to schedule and remediate seven 60 day conditions identified within the time frames\nrequired by §195.452 (h)(4)(ii).\nSunoco performed an ILI on the 10” Douglass to Longview segment and discovered the seven\nconditions on 10/27/2014.","truncated":true,"body_characters":63393}