{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42024015NOPV","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":"2024-03-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.428(a), 195.428(d), 195.452(i)(1), 195.49, 195.563(a), 195.573(c), 195.583(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024015nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024015nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024015nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42024015NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.428(a),  195.428(d),  195.452(i)(1),  195.49,  195.563(a),  195.573(c),  195.583(c). The case was opened on 2024-03-25 and is reported as closed as of 2026-07-10. Proposed civil penalty: $39,400. Assessed civil penalty: $36,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42024015NOPV_Closure Letter_07102026_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07102026_(22-232769).pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Closure Letter_07102026_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07102026_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02112026_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_02112026_(22-232769).pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02112026_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_02112026_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(22-232769).pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_10162025_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10162025_(22-232769).pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_05172024_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05172024_(22-232769).pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_PCP PCO_03252024_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03252024_(22-232769).pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_PCP PCO_03252024_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03252024_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\n42024015NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02112026_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFebruary 11, 2026\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nThomas E. Long\nCo-Chief Executive Officer\nSunoco Pipeline LP, an Energy Transfer Partnership\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sunoco Pipeline, LP in the\nabove-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition and\nwithdraws Item 5 of the Final Order. When the remaining terms of the Compliance Order have\nbeen completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will\nbe closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of\nthis Decision is made pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\ncc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV\nan Energy Transfer Partnership, )\n)\n)\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nFrom June 6 through December 1, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), and New York Department of Public Service inspected Sunoco Pipeline LP’s (Sunoco or\nPetitioner) Big Flats to Montello pipeline system in New York, and Montello, Pennsylvania.\nAs a result of that inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director) issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Sunoco\nby letter dated March 25, 2024. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 CFR Part 195, proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $39,400 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Sunoco to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. Effective May 20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed\ncivil penalty calculation policy to use the version of the Civil Penalty Worksheet in effect when\nthe alleged violation occurred. The new policy modified the proposed civil penalty in this case to\n$36,600. The Notice also included an additional two warning items pursuant to 49 CFR\n§ 190.205, which warned Sunoco to correct the probable violations or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Sunoco responded to the Notice\nby letter dated May 17, 2024 (Response). Sunoco contested one of the allegations (Item 5) and\noffered additional information in response to the Notice. Sunoco did not contest the other four\nitems. Sunoco did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one.\nOn September 26, 2025, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.213,\nPHMSA issued a Final Order finding that Petitioner committed each of the five violations\nalleged in the Notice. The Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $36,600 and included a\nCompliance Order specifying certain actions that must be taken to comply with the pipeline\n\n\n\nsafety regulations. As to Item 5, the Final Order did not assess a civil penalty for the violation\nbut ordered Sunoco to revise its procedures.\nSunoco filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on October 16, 2025 requesting\nreconsideration of Item 5 and requesting the Compliance Order be stayed as to Item 5 pending\nconsideration of its Petition. Petitioner did not request reconsideration of any other item in the\nFinal Order and paid the assessed civil penalty in full on October 15, 2025. On October 29, 2025,\nthe Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety stayed the Compliance Order as to Item 5\npending issuance of this decision.\nHaving now considered the Petition, and for the reasons discussed below, PHMSA grants the\nPetition and withdraws the finding of violation in Item 5 and the associated terms of the\nCompliance Order.\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW\nUnder 49 CFR § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a Final Order that has been issued pursuant to section 190.213.\nReconsideration is not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.1 A petitioner may ask\nfor correction of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable\ninformation. If a petitioner requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the petitioner\nmust submit the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. The\nAssociate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration\nwithout further proceedings.\nDISCUSSION\nItem 5: The Final Order found that the Petitioner violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a), which states:\n§ 195.563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?\n(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated,\nreplaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c)\nmust have cathodic protection. The cathodic protection must be in operation\nnot later than 1 year after the pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or\notherwise changed, as applicable.\nThe Final Order determined that Sunoco violated section 195.563(a) by failing to have cathodic\nprotection in operation not later than one year after a pipeline was constructed, relocated,\nreplaced, or otherwise changed. Specifically, the Final Order determined that Sunoco replaced\nthe tank bottoms on tanks 510 and 511 at the Montello station on May 4, 2006 and August 9,\n2004, respectively, but failed to install cathodic protection. The Final Order included a\n1 Belle Fourche Pipeline Co., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-2007-5002, 2008 WL 8430578, at *1 (Jul.\n14, 2008), available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520075002.\n\n\n\nCompliance Order that required Petitioner to revise its procedures to ensure any tanks that\nreceive a new bottom have cathodic protection and to submit to the Director a copy of the\nrevised procedures within 90 days.\nIn its Petition, Petitioner presented several arguments for why Item 5 should be withdrawn. As a\nthreshold matter, Petitioner argued the Final Order erroneously concluded 49 CFR § 195.563(a)\nrequires cathodic protection on tanks 510 and 511. Petitioner noted that section 195.563(a) only\napplies to “buried or submerged pipelines” and “buried” is defined in section 195.553 as\n“covered or in contact with soil.” Petitioner explained these tanks are not covered or in contact\nwith soil because Sunoco replaced the tank bottoms with a layered double-bottomed design,\nmeaning the bottoms of the tanks now comprise a new steel bottom, a layer of concrete, a non-\nconductive plastic liner, and finally, the original bottom.2 In this double-bottomed configuration,\nthe original tank bottom remains in contact with the soil but the new tank bottom is separated by\na non-conductive liner and concrete layer, which interrupt the electrolytic pathway required for\ncorrosion to occur. Petitioner explained the effect of the new tank bottom placement isolates the\ntank from contact with the soil.\n3\nA. Whether tanks 510 and 511 are “in contact with soil”\nIn the Final Order, PHMSA concluded that “[t]anks 510 and 511 are in contact with soil” and\nthat section 195.563(a) therefore requires cathodic protection.\n4 PHMSA likened tanks 510 and\n511 to a previous enforcement case where the agency found an operator had violated\nsection 195.563(a) when the operator replaced a previously installed cathodic protection system\non 16 breakout tanks with an alternative corrosion control technology.5 In that case, PHMSA\nfound the tanks “were all originally constructed with cathodic protection systems and are in\ncontact with the soil,” and therefore, section 195.563(a) required the 16 tanks to have cathodic\nprotection.\n6\nIn its Petition, Petitioner argued that the previous case is dissimilar to its own facility because the\ntanks in that case were designed to be in contact with the soil and were never changed. Once the\ncathodic protection had deteriorated, the operator chose to stop maintaining the cathodic\nprotection anodes and installed an alternative corrosion control technology.\nIn the present situation, however, Petitioner explained tanks 510 and 511 each have a new\ntank bottom separated by a non-conductive liner and concrete layer, which isolates the tank\nfrom contact with the soil. Petitioner contended a more analogous enforcement case was one\nwhere a PHMSA Region withdrew an alleged violation of section 195.563(a) after the operator\n2 Petition at 4.\n3 Petition at 8. In response to the Notice, Sunoco submitted data regarding the effectiveness of its double-bottom\ntank method at controlling corrosion.\n4 Final Order at 5.\n5 Final Order at 6, citing Plains Pipeline, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2013-5007, 2015 WL 4397455 (May 22,\n2015), available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420135007.\n6 Plains Pipeline at 8.\n\n\n\ndemonstrated a concrete pad separated the tank bottom from contact with the ground, rendering\nthe tank outside the coverage of section 195.563(a) for “buried” pipelines.7\nUpon reconsideration of this matter, PHMSA agrees with Petitioner that tanks 510 and 511 are\nnot in contact with the soil and therefore are not “buried” within the plain text meaning of\nsection 195.563(a). The Final Order was in error to conclude that tanks 510 and 511 are in\ncontact with the soil considering the evidence that the tanks are separated and isolated from the\nsoil by a non-conductive liner and concrete layer.8 Since tanks 510 and 511 are not “buried,” as\nthat term is defined, section 195.563(a) does not apply. Accordingly, PHMSA grants the Petition\nand withdraws the finding of violation in Item 5 and the associated terms of the Compliance\nOrder.9\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated above, the Petition for Reconsideration is granted.\n_____________________________ ________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n7 Petition at 7, citing Buckeye Partners, LP, Withdrawal of Notice Letter, CPF No. 1-2024-053-NOPV (Mar. 31,\n2025), available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12024053NOPV. The Region did not explain\nthe reason for withdrawing the probable violation, but any such reasoning would carry no precedential weight.\n8 PHMSA previously issued a regulatory interpretation that examined whether a breakout tank with a concrete pad\nand liner was “buried” under section 195.563(a), see Interpretation P-20-0014 to Mr. Matthew Williamson for\nChemoil Terminals Corp. (Jan. 10, 2022), but that interpretation was withdrawn for further consideration, see Letter\nto Mr. Williamson (Jul. 21, 2025), available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/pi-20-0014-0.\n9 In its Petition, Petitioner raised several other arguments for withdrawing Item 5, including that sections 195.563(a)\nand 195.565 do not require cathodic protection for some buried breakout tanks. Because PHMSA’s finding that\ntanks 510 and 511 are not buried is dispositive, it unnecessary to consider Petitioner’s remaining arguments.\n\n42024015NOPV_Closure Letter_07102026_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston TX 77074\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nJuly 10, 2026\nThomas E. Long\nCo-Chief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Dr.\nDallas, Texas 75225\nCPF 4-2024-015-NOPV\nDear Mr. Long:\nOn September 26, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Sunoco Pipeline LP a Final Order, and on February 11, 2026, granted a Petition for\nReconsideration in the above-referenced case. The Final Order, as modified by the decision on\nreconsideration, included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.\nBased on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil\npenalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of the Final Order, as\nmodified.\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,\nR.M. Seeley\nActing Director, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Daniel Wentworth, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\nDaniel.wentworth@energytransfer.com\n\n\n\nChad Ingalls, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\nChad.ingalls@energytransfer.com\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.stamm@energytransfer.com\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\njennifer.street@energytransfer.com\nKeegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,\nkeegan.pieper@energytransfer.com\nMatthew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\nmatthew.stork@energytransfer.com\nTodd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com\nSusie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\nsusie.sjulin@energytransfer.com\nAnne Blankenship, Chief Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,\nanne.blankenship@energytransfer.com\n\n42024015NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(22-232769)_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 26, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nThomas E. Long\nCo-Chief Executive Officer\nSunoco Pipeline LP, an Energy Transfer Partnership\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $36,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nSunoco Pipeline LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms\nare set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of\ntransmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\n1\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline LP, ) CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 6 through December 1, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS) and New York Department of Public Service, conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of the facilities and records of Sunoco Pipeline LP’s (Sunoco or Respondent) Big\nFlats to Montello pipeline system in New York and Montello, Pennsylvania. The pipeline\nextends from Pennsylvania through New York and to the Montello terminal. At the Montello\nterminal there are breakout tanks and storage tanks for storage and movement of products stored.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 25, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 CFR Part 195,\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $36,600 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Effective May\n20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy to use the version of the\nCivil Penalty Worksheet in effect when the alleged violation occurred. The new policy modified\nthe proposed civil penalty in this case.1The Notice also included an additional two warning items\npursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205, which warned Respondent to correct the probable violations or\nface possible future enforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Sunoco timely responded to the\nNotice by letter dated May 17, 2024 (Response). Respondent contested one of the allegations\nand offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Southwest Region informed Respondent of the new penalty policy and case file policy via letter dated July 16,\n2025. Respondent confirmed receipt via email July 17, 2025.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(d), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\n(b) . . . .\n(c) . . . .\n(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of\nthis section for inspection and testing of pressure control equipment apply\nto the inspection and testing of overfill protection systems.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(d) by failing to inspect and test\neach overfill protection system to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical\ncondition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is used at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear. Specifically, Sunoco failed to inspect the overfill protection devices on twenty-two (22)\nbreakout tanks at the Montello, Pennsylvania station in 2020 and 2021.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(d) by failing to inspect and\ntest each overfill protection system to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good\nmechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is used.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.49, which states:\n§ 195.49 Annual report.\n\n\n\n3\nEach operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA F\n7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the\nend of the previous year. An operator must submit the annual report by\nJune 15 each year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must\nbe submitted by August 15, 2011. A separate report is required for crude\noil, HVL (including anhydrous ammonia), petroleum products, carbon\ndioxide pipelines, and fuel grade ethanol pipelines. For each state a pipeline\ntraverses, an operator must separately complete those sections on the form\nrequiring information to be reported for each state.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.49 by failing to annually complete\nand submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility\noperated. Specifically, Sunoco failed to submit complete and accurate annual reports for 2019,\n2020, 2021, and 2022 with respect to bare pipe mileage.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.49 by failing to annually complete\nand submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility\noperated.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area? —\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent\nand mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high\nconsequence area. These measures include conducting a risk analysis of the\npipeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safety or\nenvironmental protection. Such actions may include, but are not limited to,\nimplementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring of\ncathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter\ninspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying\nthe systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing additional\ntraining to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local\nemergency responders and adopting other management controls.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to conduct a risk\nanalysis of each pipeline facility that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) to identify\nadditional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Specifically, Sunoco\nfailed to conduct a risk analysis in line with Section 5.2 of Energy Transfer, LP’s Pipeline Integrity\nManagement Plan (Rev. 6, Feb. 1, 2022), which required Sunoco to conduct a facility threat/risk\nanalysis for new facilities and/or newly determined existing facilities within 15 months of the HCA\ndetermination and to conduct the assessment within 5 years at the Tonawanda/Buffalo Sun and\nRochester Sun/Alaskan facilities.\n\n\n\n4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to conduct a\nrisk analysis of each pipeline facility that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) to identify\nadditional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(c), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you\nmust provide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(c) by failing to provide\nprotection against corrosion that was found during an inspection. Specifically, photos from an\ninspection on GForm 311650 at Berne Junction in the Montello area showed corrosion on the\nvalve body that required remediation, but no remediation was taken.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(c) by failing to provide\nprotection against corrosion that was found during an inspection.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a), which states:\n§ 195.563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?\n(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated, replaced, or\notherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c) must have cathodic\nprotection. The cathodic protection must be in operation not later than 1 year after\nthe pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed, as\napplicable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a) by failing to have cathodic\nprotection in operation not later than one (1) year after its pipeline is constructed, relocated,\nreplaced, or otherwise changed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco replaced the tank\nbottoms on tanks 510 and 511 at the Montello station on May 4, 2006, and August 9, 2004,\nrespectively and failed to install cathodic protection.\nIn its Response, Sunoco argued that cathodic protection was unnecessary for Tanks 510 and 511\nat the Montello Station and therefore Sunoco could not be in violation of section 195.563(a).\nSunoco referenced section 195.565 which states that, operators do not “need to comply with\nANSI/API RP 651 when installing any tank for which [an operator] note[s] in the corrosion\ncontrol procedures established under section 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain\nprovisions of ANSI/API RP 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.” Sunoco stated that\nTanks 510 and 511 have double tank bottoms and that cathodic protection is only effective for\ncorrosion control if it is possible to pass electrical current between the anode and cathode (tank\nbottom), which Sunoco argued is not possible for double tank bottoms. Sunoco further argued\n\n\n\n5\nthat the tank bottoms for Tanks 510 and 511 are not resting on a corrosive environment because\nof the concrete foundations with a liquid impervious liner underneath. Sunoco further stated that\nSection 7.2 and Appendix B of Energy Transfer Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).HLD.48,\nInstallation of Cathodic Protection on Breakout Tanks (Apr. 1, 2018) outlines the reasons why\ncathodic protection would be ineffective for tank with a double bottom. In addition, Sunoco\nstated that the electronic resistance (ER) corrosion rate of the steel in the environment the tank\nbottoms are in contact with are negligible and provided data.\nSunoco stated that it had sufficient justification for not complying with § 195.563(a) because, 1.\ncathodic protection was unnecessary for tanks due to API RP 651; 2. there are limitations with\nregards to cathodic protection of double tank bottoms; 3. there are limitations with regards to\ncathodic protection when there is an impervious liner, and; 4. the ER data was inconclusive.\nTanks 510 and 511 are breakout tanks. The definition of pipeline includes breakout tanks.2\nSection 195.563(a) requires that “[e]ach buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed,\nrelocated, replaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c) must have\ncathodic protection” (emphasis added). The word “must” in the regulation creates a legal\nobligation, in this case a legal obligation to have cathodic protection on the pipeline. This\nobligation is established if the pipeline meets two requirements: 1. it is buried or submerged, and\n2. it is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in §\n195.401(c).3 A buried pipeline is one that is covered or in contact with soil.4\nTanks 510 and 511 meet both requirements established in § 195.563(a) and, therefore, Sunoco\nmust have cathodic protection for the tanks. Tanks 510 and 511 are in contact with soil and\nTanks 510 and 511 were otherwise changed in 2006 and 2004, respectively. Therefore, Sunoco\nmust install cathodic protection on its tanks and may not forego cathodic protection for any\nreason.\nSunoco argued four additional points that are moot due to the legal obligation to install cathodic\nprotection established by § 195.563(a). However, I shall address them each briefly.\nSunoco incorrectly interpreted § 195.565 incorporated by reference standards for installing\ncathodic protection on breakout tanks under § 195.563(a). This section provides flexibility for\nhow cathodic protection is installed respective to API RP 651. It does not allow the operator an\noption to do without cathodic protection, as Sunoco stated.5 PHMSA has considered and\n2 49 C.F.R § 195.2 “[p]ipeline or pipeline system” to mean “all parts of a pipeline facility through which a hazardous\nliquid or carbon dioxide moves in transportation, . . . , and breakout tanks.”\n3 The applicable date being March 31, 1970.\n4 49 C.F.R § 195.553.\n5 Sunoco Response at 5. In their Response Sunoco quoted the second half of § 195.565 “you must install the system\nin accordance with ANSI/API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, you don’t need to comply\nwith ANSI/API RP 651 when installing any tank for which you note in the corrosion control procedures established\nunder § 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain provisions of ANSI/API RP 651 is not necessary for the\nsafety of the tank” in order to imply that cathodic protection was optional. However, Sunoco failed to quote the\npreceding sentence of the regulation “After October 2, 2000 ,when you install cathodic protection under §\n\n\n\n6\nrejected an argument analogous to Sunoco’s before, where the operator argued that it was not\nrequired to install cathodic protection on a breakout tank due to the language in § 195.565.6\nHowever, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety rejected this argument stating “§\n195.563 is clear from its title and text of the rule that each breakout tank in contact with the soil\nmust have cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is explicitly required by the regulation and\nthere is no qualification or exception to this statement in the rule.”7 This case is analogous in\nfact and the same reasoning should be applied in this case. Sunoco must install cathodic\nprotection on breakout tanks, but it has the option to explain in its corrosion control procedures\n“why complying with all or certain provisions of API RP 651 is not necessary for the safety of\nthe tank.”8\nSunoco’s technical statements are not correct. Contrary to Section 7.2 of the SOP.HLD.48,9\ncathodic protection is effective on double bottom tanks when installed correctly. API RP 651\n(1997)10 includes, in sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.4.3, guidance for installing a cathodic protection\nsystem on double bottom breakout tanks. Further, Sunoco alleges cathodic protection is\nunnecessary if the tank has an impervious liner underneath. However, Section 7.2.5 of API RP\n651 provides guidance for how to install cathodic protection in the instance a tank bottom has an\nimpervious liner underneath.\nFinally, Sunoco argued that electrical resistance corrosion probe data indicates that the corrosion\nrate for steel in the same environment as the tank bottoms was negligible. Sunoco stated this\nmeant cathodic protection was unnecessary. However, this argument is moot because, as already\nstated, regulations do not permit operators to forego cathodic protection. The data from the\nprobe does not change Sunoco’s regulatory obligation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.563(a) by failing to have cathodic protection in operation not later than one (1) year after\nits pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\n195.563(a) to protect the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank of more than 500 barrels 79.49m3 capacity built\nto API Spec 12F (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), API\nStd 650 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or API Std 650's predecessor, Standard 12C, you must install the\nsystem in accordance with ANSI/API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) (emphasis added).”\n6 See Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., CPF No. 4-2013-5007.\n7 See id.\n8 49 CFR § 195.565; see also See Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., CPF No. 4-2013-5007 (holding “[a]n operator\nwho documents why it is unnecessary to comply with API RP 651 when installing cathodic protection is permitted\nto install the cathodic protection in a manner that does not follow the recommended practice. Nothing in the\nregulation permits an operator to avoid installation of cathodic protection entirely.”).\n9 See Sunoco SOP.HLD, Section 7.2 “installation of cathodic protection may not be feasible and effective in all\ncases, such as with floor replacements in existing tanks using a double bottom configuration.”\n10 API RP 651(1991) was incorporated by reference at the time the changes were made to Tanks 510 and 511.\n\n\n\n7\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty exceeding\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, with a maximum administrative civil\npenalty exceeding $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.11\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $36,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR §\n195.428(d), for failing to inspect and test each overfill protection system to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of\ncapacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used at intervals not exceeding\n15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Sunoco neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $36,600 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.428(d).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 CFR § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 CFR § 901.9 and 49 CFR § 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\n11 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\n8\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 CFR §§ 195.49, 195.452(i)(1), 195.583(c), and 195.563(a), respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601.\nIn its Response, Respondent agreed to complete the proposed compliance order for Items 2, 3,\nand 4.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.563(a) (Item 5), Respondent argued the compliance terms\nshould be withdrawn. Respondent argued that cathodic protection was not necessary for the\nsafety of the tank and therefore it need not comply with the PCO. Sunoco also stated its existing\nprocedure satisfies the proposed compliance order.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.49 (Item 2), Respondent must revise and\nresubmit its previously submitted annual reports to accurately reflect the amount\nof bare pipe mileage and provide copies to the Director, Southwest Region within\n30 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respec","truncated":true,"body_characters":43744}