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

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

Official case documents:

420175021_Closure Letter_04022019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Closure%20Letter_04022019.pdf

420175021_Closure Letter_04022019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Closure%20Letter_04022019_text.pdf

420175021_Corrected Final Order_12202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Corrected%20Final%20Order_12202018.pdf

420175021_Corrected Final Order_12202018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Corrected%20Final%20Order_12202018_text.pdf

420175021_NOPV PCP PCO_ 08142017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_%2008142017_text.pdf

420175021_NOPV PCP PCO_08142017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08142017.pdf

420175021_Operator Response to the Notice_09222017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175021/420175021_Operator%20Response%20to%20the%20Notice_09222017.pdf

420175021_Closure Letter_04022019_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 2, 2019
Kelcy L. Warren
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Energy Transfer Partners, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas, 75225
CPF 4-2017-5021
Dear Mr. Warren:
On December 20, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to your subsidiary, Sunoco Pipeline, LP a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This
Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420175021_Corrected Final Order_12202018_text.pdf

December 20, 2018
Mr. Kelcy L. Warren
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Energy Transfer Partners, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, TX 75225
Re: CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Dear Mr. Warren:
Enclosed please find the Corrected Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your
subsidiary, Sunoco Pipeline, LP. The Final Order issued in this case on September 18, 2018
miscalculated the total civil penalty assessment and the balance that was still due. I apologize
for these computational errors, which have been rectified in this Corrected Final Order. The new
order makes no other substantive changes to the Final Order.
The Corrected Final Order makes findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of
$90,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount by three
separate wire transfers, dated October 4, 2017, October 4, 2018, and October 9, 2018,
respectively.
When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director,
Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Corrected Final Order
by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Ryan Coffey, Executive Vice President of Operators, Energy Transfer Partners, LP,
1 Fluor Daniel Drive, Bldg. A, Level 3, Sugar Land, TX 77478
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, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, LP, )
)
Respondent. )
________________________________________________)
) CPF No. 4-2017-5021
CORRECTED FINAL ORDER
From September 6 through October 14, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives 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), in Texas.1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP, a subsidiary of Energy
Transfer Partners, LP, operates the Nederland to Kilgore hazardous liquid pipeline in Texas.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 14, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warning items pursuant
to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding
that Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $129,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to
take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further
action but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future
enforcement action.
Energy Transfer Partners, LP, on behalf of Sunoco, responded to the Notice by letter dated
September 22, 2017 (Response).2 The company contested several of the allegations of violation
and provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Sunoco partially paid
the proposed civil penalty, in the amount of $35,500, by wire transfer dated October 4, 2017.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
On September 18, 2018, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this case that incorrectly calculated
1 Inspection locations included Longview, Goodrich, Aldine and Houston, Texas.
2 On September 7, 2017, Sunoco requested a time extension to respond to the Notice, which was granted by PHMSA
on September 13, 2017.



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 2
$54,500 as the total civil penalty assessed for the findings of violation, rather than the balance
due. It incorrectly stated the balance owed by Energy Transfer Partners, LP, was $19,000. This
Corrected Final Order replaces and supersedes the September 18, 2018 Final Order to correct the
total civil penalty assessment as being $90,000. Respondent made additional partial payments of
$19,000 and $35,500 by wire transfers on October 4, 2018 and October 9, 2018, respectively.
Combined with the first partial payment of $35,500 on October 4, 2017, Respondent has now
paid the full penalty amount of $90,000.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent 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 5 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 a report of a
safety-related condition under § 195.55(a) within five working days after determining that the
condition existed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that in October 2014 and February 2016,
Sunoco issued two 20-percent pressure reductions on the Goodrich to Longview segment of its
pipeline due to the discovery of two safety-related conditions that were reportable under
§ 195.55(a)(6) but failed to file reports with PHMSA.
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 two
safety-related reports for safety-related conditions on its pipeline.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b)(1), which states:
§ 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



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 3
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, a condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed, for approximately two years, to take action to
repair a section of buried pipe that was exposed and sagging due to a washout.3 While
Respondent contended that the evidence presented by PHMSA was not conclusive to show the
condition existed for more than five years, 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. § 195.401(b)(1) by failing to correct, within a reasonable time, a condition
that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . .
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the
integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions,
an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those
that could reduce a pipeline’s integrity. . .
(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation –
(i) . . .
(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph
(h)(4)(i) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and
remediation of the following conditions within 60 days of discovery of
condition . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii) by failing to schedule
evaluation and remediation of several anomalous conditions within 60 days of discovery of the
conditions. Specifically, the Notice alleged that after discovering seven 60-day conditions on its
Douglass to Longview segment on October 27, 2014, Sunoco failed to remediate them within 60
days.
In its Response, Sunoco contested this allegation of violation, stating that although the
remediation dates for these seven 60-day conditions fell outside the regulatory time frame, the
pipeline was not in service transporting hazardous liquid at the time. Because the line was not in
service, Sunoco argued that it was permitted to exceed the regulatory time frame.
The ostensible basis for Sunoco’s defense is a separate regulation, § 195.452(h)(1)(i), which
requires an operator to notify PHMSA if the operator cannot meet the schedule for evaluation
3 Although Sunoco inspected the segment on September 21, 2016, and aerial patrol reports for the preceding three
months did not indicate that the pipe was exposed, PHMSA reviewed Google Earth satellite imagery for this location
and found evidence that the pipe had been exposed since at least 2009. Notice at 2.



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 4
and remediation and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in operating pressure.
Respondent argued that under § 195.452(h)(1)(i), an operator may exceed the schedule for
evaluation and remediation in § 195.452(h)(4)(ii) if an additional measure of safety can be
provided by temporarily reducing the operating pressure of the pipeline. Here, Respondent
noted, the line was not in service, had been purged of hazardous liquid, and was filled with
nitrogen under a low pressure. Sunoco argued that these additional safety measures permitted
the company to exceed the 60-day regulatory time frame for remediation and Sunoco was not
required to notify PHMSA that it could not meet the schedule. Respondent also noted that when
the line became operational again on July 27, 2015, all seven of the 60-day anomalies had been
repaired.
I disagree. Under § 195.452(h)(4)(ii), Sunoco was required to timely schedule evaluation and
remediation on seven 60-day conditions on its line. When it did not meet this schedule, the
company was required, under a separate requirement in § 195.452(h)(3), to explain the reasons
why it could not meet the schedule and how the changed schedule did not jeopardize public
safety or the environment. Sunoco, however, failed to do either. Instead, it relied on its
temporary pressure reduction to contend that it did not need to notify PHMSA under
§ 195.452(h)(1)(i) of its inability to meet the remediation schedule. 4
Respondent’s argument, however, is flawed because it fails to recognize the purpose and intent
of the regulation, which is to require evaluation and remediation of anomalous conditions that
can potentially reduce a pipeline’s integrity, regardless of whether the line is in service or not.
PHMSA has made clear on numerous occasions that operators must protect “inactive” or “idle”
pipelines to the same extent as if they are fully operational.5 Further, the text of the notification
requirement in § 195.452(h)(1)(i) clearly does not exempt an operator from the other integrity-
management requirements cited above. Finally, PHMSA has provided fair notice to operators
that just because a pipeline “has been subjected to prior reductions in maximum operating
pressure,” this does not exempt them from integrity management requirements.6
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
4 See also, PHMSA Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2016–05) (Aug. 11, 2016) (noting that “owners or operators planning
to defer certain activities for purged pipelines should coordinate the deferral in advance with regulators”).
5 See, e.g., In the Matter of Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2012-5023 (May 6, 2013)
(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (noting that “[i]f a pipeline has not been abandoned in
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.59, then it is considered to be active and an operator must ensure that the pipeline
complies with all applicable requirements of Part 195”); see also In the Matter of Williams Olefins Feedstock
Pipelines, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2017-5001 (July 24, 2017) (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (stating that although an operator noted it would complete a total
inspection and rehabilitation of its pipeline, including valve replacement, atmospheric corrosion remediation, and in-
line inspection prior to placing the idled line back into service, it was in violation of § 195.583(c) by failing to
provide protection against corrosion as required by § 195.581 upon discovering evidence of atmospheric corrosion
during several valve inspections. The Final Order noted that “PHMSA regulations do not recognize idle status, and
consider pipelines to be either active and fully subject to all relevant parts of the safety regulations or abandoned.”).
6 PHMSA Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management FAQ 7.23, available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/iim/
faqs htm#a (last accessed May 30, 2018).



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 5
§ 195.452(h)(4)(ii) by failing to schedule evaluation and remediation of 60-day conditions within
60 days. However, since the line was purged at the time, I find that such mitigating
circumstances do warrant a penalty reduction, which is discussed more fully in the “Assessment
of Penalty” section below.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1)(iii), which
states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . .
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the
integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions,
an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that
could reduce a pipeline’s integrity. . .
(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation
(i) . . .
(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph
(h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and
remediation of the following within 180 days of discovery of the condition:
. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii) by failing to schedule
evaluation and remediation of several conditions within 180 days of discovery of the conditions.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that, after discovering three 180-day conditions on its Douglass
to OTI segment on December 18, 2012, and one 180-day condition on its Douglas to Longview
segment on October 27, 2014, Sunoco failed to remediate them within 180 days.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but provided additional information that it
believed warranted a reduction in the proposed civil penalty. I address that argument more fully
in the “Assessment of Penalty” section below.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii) by failing to timely remediate 180-day conditions within 180 days
of discovery.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . .
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of
the individual’s qualifications is needed: . . . .



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 6
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by failing to have and
follow a written qualification program that included provisions to identify covered tasks and the
intervals at which evaluation of an individual’s qualification is needed. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Sunoco’s Operator Qualification Plan (OQ Plan) set a standard 36-month evaluation
interval for all non-welding covered tasks, except for ones that extended beyond 36 months, and
failed to consider intervals shorter than 36 months if the task required it. It further alleged that
Appendix C of the OQ Plan included a list of covered tasks with a 36-month requalification
interval and no task showed a documented justification for the requalification interval used.
Sunoco contested this allegation of violation, noting that it had adopted the recommendations of
API’s Consortium of Operator Qualification (COOQ), which recommends a standard 36-month
interval for conducting periodic reevaluations. Sunoco noted that this standard interval was
consistent with API Recommended Practice 1161, “API Recommended Practice for Pipeline
Operator Qualification (OQ),” 3rd Edition, January 2014, which the company claimed “discusses
that an operator has the option of utilizing evaluation intervals established by an industry
association or other entity or developing their own intervals, but that an evaluation interval of 36
months is recommended based on current practice.”7
Section 195.505(g) requires operators to identify “covered tasks and the intervals at which
evaluation of the individual’s qualifications is needed.” In other words, operators must
determine requalification intervals for each covered task. As noted above, Sunoco’s OQ Plan
lists requalification intervals for covered tasks in Appendix C of its OQ Plan and all non-welding
covered task have a requalification interval of 36 months, not to exceed 39 months. I find
insufficient evidence to prove that Sunoco has violated the plain meaning of the regulation in its
identification of the intervals at which reevaluation is needed.
While the Notice further alleged a violation for failure to “require justification for the interval
established,” I fail to see how this allegation is derived from either the text or the intent of the
regulation. Section 195.505(g) does not describe the extent to which operators must justify
interval selections. I note that PHMSA has issued guidance advising operators using an “off-the-
shelf” qualification program that they “must understand the basis on which reevaluation intervals
have been specified.”8 PHMSA has also issued an Advisory Bulletin alerting the industry that
“requalification intervals established by operators must reflect the relevant factors including the
complexity, criticality, and frequency of the task, and be justified by appropriate
documentation.”9
There is nothing in the language of § 195.505(g), however, that requires each operator to conduct
such an analysis itself for each covered task. In this case, Sunoco notes in its OQ Plan that it
7 Response, at 5. See, API RP 1161, Recommended Practice for Pipeline Operator Qualification (OQ), Section 9.2
(January 2014).
8 PHMSA OQ FAQ 1.1., available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/oq/faqs htm#13 (last accessed May 25, 2018).
9 PHMSA Advisory Bulletin 04-05, Implementation of Operator Qualification (OQ) Requirements Mandated by the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Nov. 19, 2004).



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 7
adopted the COOQ recommendations for requalification intervals, which is consistent with other
industry standards, including API Recommended Practice 1161.10 I find no evidence in the
record that Sunoco failed to understand the basis for the requalification intervals it adopted.11
Moreover, Respondent’s program requires separate justification only if a requalification extends
beyond 36 months.
Therefore, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by adopting a standard
36-month interval for conducting required periodic reevaluations. This violation is hereby
withdrawn.
I would note, however, that PHMSA encourages operators to adopt and follow a rigorous OQ
program that includes a process used for establishing appropriate requalification intervals that
recognize the difficulty of each individual task, its safety importance, the potential for loss of
knowledge of the task over time, manufacturers’ recommendations, and other critical factors. In
many cases, this may necessitate unique intervals for various tasks within a particular operator’s
pipeline system.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.12 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; 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
10 See PHMSA OQ FAQ 5.6, available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/oq/faqs.htm (last accessed May 30, 2018)
(noting that “determination and justification of reevaluation interval should consider existing consensus standards
and industry practice…”).
11 See Sunoco’s OQ Plan, Section 5.3 Re-qualification Frequency, at 11 (describing the company’s adoption of the
COOQ recommendation) (Oct. 22, 2015); see also, In the Matter of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, Final Order,
CPF No. 2-2015-1005 (Aug. 24, 2017) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (withdrawing the
proposed violation of § 192.805(g) for the company’s alleged failure to demonstrate that its OQ requalification
intervals were individually justified. The Final Order found that the regulation does not require operators themselves
to justify requalification intervals and that the company’s OQ program provided a basis for requalification intervals
by adopting the Veriforce OQ Program, an “off-the-shelf” OQ plan, that was consistent with PHMSA guidance and
industry standards, including ASME B31Q and that identified covered tasks and corresponding requalification
intervals based on multiple factors as set forth in its OQ plan.).
12 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 8
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $129,800 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.56(a), for failing to file a report of a safety-related condition under § 195.55(a) within five
working days after determining that the condition existed. Respondent did not contest this item
and paid the penalty by wire transfer, dated October 4, 2017.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(h)(4)(ii), for failing to timely schedule evaluation and remediation on seven 60-day
conditions. Sunoco contested this item, arguing that because the line was idled under a low
pressure nitrogen blanket, safety was minimally affected. I find that even though this does not
negate or justify the violation, Sunoco’s interpretation of the requirement was reasonable,
although incorrect, and warrants some adjustment of the proposed penalty given that the pipeline
was purged. Therefore, I am utilizing the “good faith” credit allowed under PHMSA’s penalty-
assessment criteria for this violation and reducing the penalty to $14,800 for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $62,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(h)(4)(iii), for failing to timely schedule evaluation and remediation of four 180-day
conditions. In its Response, Sunoco stated that there were only three 180-day conditions
requiring remediation. After reviewing Sunoco’s Response, I agree that one of the anomalies did
not meet the 180-day condition criteria. Therefore, the number of instances of violation for this
Item should be three, instead of four. Although the violation persisted for well beyond the
regulatory deadline for remediation, the line was idled under a low-pressure nitrogen blanket. As
a result, pipeline safety was minimally affected. Further, I find that Sunoco had a reasonable,
although incorrect, interpretation of the requirement for not repairing these anomalies within the
regulatory timeframe, given that the pipeline was purged. Therefore, I am utilizing the “good
faith” credit allowed under PHMSA’s penalty-assessment criteria for this violation and reducing
the penalty to $39,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii).
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 $90,000. The full penalty
amount of $90,000 has already been paid by Respondent by wire transfer with three separate
payments dated October 4, 2017, October 4, 2018, and October 9, 2018, respectively.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 6 in the Notice, for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b)(1) and 195.505(g), respectively. 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.
Item 6 has been withdrawn, and therefore the corresponding compliance terms are also



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 9
withdrawn. With regard to the violation of § 195.401(b)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has submitted
maintenance records, corresponding sketches, and photographs showing that a permanent repair
to the exposed section of the pipe has been made. Sunoco stated that this repair was completed
by November 14, 2016. However, in its Recommendation, the Region noted ongoing concern
with the safety of this pipeline due to its location in a riverbed. The Region stated that, although
support had been added to prevent the pipe from sagging, the supports do not appear to “make
permanent repairs to restore it to a safe condition,” as provided in the Proposed Compliance
Order, since it does not protect the pipe from movement in other directions.
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 submit
to PHMSA an engineering analysis of the repair to confirm the safety of the repair
within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 3, 7, and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to
be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1)(i) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to timely
remediate an anomalous condition it discovered through integrity assessment or
information analysis, and to notify PHMSA when it could not meet the
remediation schedule and provide safety through a temporary reduction in
operating pressure;



CPF No. 4-2017-5021
Page 10
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct
tests on its cathodically protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether cathodic protection
required by Subpart H complies with § 195.571; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain, for at
least five years, a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,
inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by Subpart H of Part
195 in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures
or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.
If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this
Corrected Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to
the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of
service of this Corrected Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a
petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the
order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Corrected Final Order are effective upon
service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 20, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420175021_NOPV PCP PCO_ 08142017_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 14, 2017
Mr. David Chalson
V.P. Of Operations
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
4041 Market Street
Aston, PA 19014
CPF 4-2017-5021
Dear Mr. Chalson:
On September 6, 2016 through October 14, 2016, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter
601 of 49 United States Code inspected procedures, records, and facilities for your Nederland to
Kilgore pipeline in Texas.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violations are:
1. §195.56 Filing safety-related condition reports.
(a) Each report of a safety-related condition under § 195.55(a) must be filed
(received by the Administrator) in writing within 5 working days (not
including Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays) after the day a



representative of the operator first determines that the condition exists, but
not later than 10 working conditions may be described in a single report if
they are closely related. To file a report by facsimile (fax), dial (202) 366-
7128.
Sunoco failed 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 as per
195.55(a)(6). Sunoco issued two 20% operating pressure reductions on the Goodrich to Longview
segment due to identification of a safety related condition. In both instances no safety-related
condition report was filed with PHMSA.
On April 29, 2014, and May 13, 2014 Sunoco performed an integrity assessment on the 10”
Goodrich to Longview segment using a deformation and magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inline
inspection tool. On October 27, 2014 Sunoco received a final report from an inline inspection
performed by a third party which detailed multiple anomalies in the “immediate repair” category.
On October 29, 2014 Sunoco issued a 20% operating pressure reduction on this segment via MOC-
7673. On February 19, 2016 Sunoco again issued a 20% operating pressure reduction via MOC-
10204 to repair an overlooked 180-day anomaly. In both cases Sunoco failed to file a safety-
related condition with PHMSA.
2. §195.401 General requirements.
(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.
Sunoco failed to take action to repair a section of buried pipe that was exposed and sagging due to
wash out. This condition existed for more than five years.
During a valve inspection on October 12, 2016 PHMSA inspectors noticed a section of pipeline
located near a river bend that was exposed and noticeably sagging due to washout. Operator
personnel stated that it must have been underwater for a long time. This section is approximately
180 feet from the valve station which was inspected by operator on September 21, 2016. Aerial
patrol reports for the preceding three months did not indicate any observation or notes regarding
the exposed section. PHMSA reviewed Google Earth maps for this location and found photographs
showing that the pipe has been exposed since at least 2009.
2



3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all
anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity
assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator
must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could
reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that
the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose
a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply
with § 195.422 when making a repair.
(i) Temporary pressure reduction. An operator must notify PHMSA, in
accordance with paragraph (m) of this section, if the operator cannot meet
the schedule for evaluation and remediation required under paragraph
(h)(3) of this section and cannot provide safety through a temporary
reduction in operating pressure.
Sunoco failed notify PHMSA that they did not meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation
as required by §195.452 (h)(4)(iii) for a 180 day anomaly identified on the Douglass to Longview
segment. Safety was not provided by a temporary pressure reduction between July 27, 2015 and
February 19, 2016.
During inspection Sunoco provided a dig sheet showing that a 180 day anomaly on the Goodrich
to Longview segment had not been remediated within the required timeframe. Sunoco operated
this line without providing safety through a pressure restriction until MOC-10204 was issued on
February 19, 2016. No notification was made to PHMSA.
4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation
(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this
section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the
following conditions within 60 days of discovery of condition.
Sunoco failed to schedule and remediate seven 60 day conditions identified within the time frames
required by §195.452 (h)(4)(ii).
Sunoco performed an ILI on the 10” Douglass to Longview segment and discovered the seven
conditions on 10/27/2014.
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 63393