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

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

Official case documents:

42024015NOPV_Closure Letter_07102026_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07102026_(22-232769).pdf

42024015NOPV_Closure Letter_07102026_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07102026_(22-232769)_text.pdf

42024015NOPV_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

42024015NOPV_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

42024015NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(22-232769).pdf

42024015NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(22-232769)_text.pdf

42024015NOPV_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

42024015NOPV_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

42024015NOPV_PCP PCO_03252024_(22-232769).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03252024_(22-232769).pdf

42024015NOPV_PCP PCO_03252024_(22-232769)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024015NOPV/42024015NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03252024_(22-232769)_text.pdf

42024015NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02112026_(22-232769)_text.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
February 11, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com
Thomas E. Long
Co-Chief Executive Officer
Sunoco Pipeline LP, an Energy Transfer Partnership
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas 75225
Re: CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV
Dear Mr. Long:
Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sunoco Pipeline, LP in the
above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition and
withdraws Item 5 of the Final Order. When the remaining terms of the Compliance Order have
been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will
be closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of
this Decision is made pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Daugherty
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
cc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
gregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Sunoco Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV
an Energy Transfer Partnership, )
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
From June 6 through December 1, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), and New York Department of Public Service inspected Sunoco Pipeline LP’s (Sunoco or
Petitioner) Big Flats to Montello pipeline system in New York, and Montello, Pennsylvania.
As a result of that inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director) issued a Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Sunoco
by letter dated March 25, 2024. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 CFR Part 195, proposed assessing a
civil penalty of $39,400 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Sunoco to take certain
measures to correct the alleged violations. Effective May 20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed
civil penalty calculation policy to use the version of the Civil Penalty Worksheet in effect when
the alleged violation occurred. The new policy modified the proposed civil penalty in this case to
$36,600. The Notice also included an additional two warning items pursuant to 49 CFR
§ 190.205, which warned Sunoco to correct the probable violations or face possible future
enforcement action.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Sunoco responded to the Notice
by letter dated May 17, 2024 (Response). Sunoco contested one of the allegations (Item 5) and
offered additional information in response to the Notice. Sunoco did not contest the other four
items. Sunoco did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one.
On September 26, 2025, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.213,
PHMSA issued a Final Order finding that Petitioner committed each of the five violations
alleged in the Notice. The Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $36,600 and included a
Compliance Order specifying certain actions that must be taken to comply with the pipeline



safety regulations. As to Item 5, the Final Order did not assess a civil penalty for the violation
but ordered Sunoco to revise its procedures.
Sunoco filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on October 16, 2025 requesting
reconsideration of Item 5 and requesting the Compliance Order be stayed as to Item 5 pending
consideration of its Petition. Petitioner did not request reconsideration of any other item in the
Final Order and paid the assessed civil penalty in full on October 15, 2025. On October 29, 2025,
the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety stayed the Compliance Order as to Item 5
pending issuance of this decision.
Having now considered the Petition, and for the reasons discussed below, PHMSA grants the
Petition and withdraws the finding of violation in Item 5 and the associated terms of the
Compliance Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 49 CFR § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a Final Order that has been issued pursuant to section 190.213.
Reconsideration is not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.1 A petitioner may ask
for correction of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable
information. If a petitioner requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the petitioner
must submit the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. The
Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration
without further proceedings.
DISCUSSION
Item 5: The Final Order found that the Petitioner violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a), which states:
§ 195.563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?
(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated,
replaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c)
must have cathodic protection. The cathodic protection must be in operation
not later than 1 year after the pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or
otherwise changed, as applicable.
The Final Order determined that Sunoco violated section 195.563(a) by failing to have cathodic
protection in operation not later than one year after a pipeline was constructed, relocated,
replaced, or otherwise changed. Specifically, the Final Order determined that Sunoco replaced
the tank bottoms on tanks 510 and 511 at the Montello station on May 4, 2006 and August 9,
2004, respectively, but failed to install cathodic protection. The Final Order included a
1 Belle Fourche Pipeline Co., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-2007-5002, 2008 WL 8430578, at *1 (Jul.
14, 2008), available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520075002.



Compliance Order that required Petitioner to revise its procedures to ensure any tanks that
receive a new bottom have cathodic protection and to submit to the Director a copy of the
revised procedures within 90 days.
In its Petition, Petitioner presented several arguments for why Item 5 should be withdrawn. As a
threshold matter, Petitioner argued the Final Order erroneously concluded 49 CFR § 195.563(a)
requires cathodic protection on tanks 510 and 511. Petitioner noted that section 195.563(a) only
applies to “buried or submerged pipelines” and “buried” is defined in section 195.553 as
“covered or in contact with soil.” Petitioner explained these tanks are not covered or in contact
with soil because Sunoco replaced the tank bottoms with a layered double-bottomed design,
meaning the bottoms of the tanks now comprise a new steel bottom, a layer of concrete, a non-
conductive plastic liner, and finally, the original bottom.2 In this double-bottomed configuration,
the original tank bottom remains in contact with the soil but the new tank bottom is separated by
a non-conductive liner and concrete layer, which interrupt the electrolytic pathway required for
corrosion to occur. Petitioner explained the effect of the new tank bottom placement isolates the
tank from contact with the soil.
3
A. Whether tanks 510 and 511 are “in contact with soil”
In the Final Order, PHMSA concluded that “[t]anks 510 and 511 are in contact with soil” and
that section 195.563(a) therefore requires cathodic protection.
4 PHMSA likened tanks 510 and
511 to a previous enforcement case where the agency found an operator had violated
section 195.563(a) when the operator replaced a previously installed cathodic protection system
on 16 breakout tanks with an alternative corrosion control technology.5 In that case, PHMSA
found the tanks “were all originally constructed with cathodic protection systems and are in
contact with the soil,” and therefore, section 195.563(a) required the 16 tanks to have cathodic
protection.
6
In its Petition, Petitioner argued that the previous case is dissimilar to its own facility because the
tanks in that case were designed to be in contact with the soil and were never changed. Once the
cathodic protection had deteriorated, the operator chose to stop maintaining the cathodic
protection anodes and installed an alternative corrosion control technology.
In the present situation, however, Petitioner explained tanks 510 and 511 each have a new
tank bottom separated by a non-conductive liner and concrete layer, which isolates the tank
from contact with the soil. Petitioner contended a more analogous enforcement case was one
where a PHMSA Region withdrew an alleged violation of section 195.563(a) after the operator
2 Petition at 4.
3 Petition at 8. In response to the Notice, Sunoco submitted data regarding the effectiveness of its double-bottom
tank method at controlling corrosion.
4 Final Order at 5.
5 Final Order at 6, citing Plains Pipeline, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2013-5007, 2015 WL 4397455 (May 22,
2015), available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420135007.
6 Plains Pipeline at 8.



demonstrated a concrete pad separated the tank bottom from contact with the ground, rendering
the tank outside the coverage of section 195.563(a) for “buried” pipelines.7
Upon reconsideration of this matter, PHMSA agrees with Petitioner that tanks 510 and 511 are
not in contact with the soil and therefore are not “buried” within the plain text meaning of
section 195.563(a). The Final Order was in error to conclude that tanks 510 and 511 are in
contact with the soil considering the evidence that the tanks are separated and isolated from the
soil by a non-conductive liner and concrete layer.8 Since tanks 510 and 511 are not “buried,” as
that term is defined, section 195.563(a) does not apply. Accordingly, PHMSA grants the Petition
and withdraws the finding of violation in Item 5 and the associated terms of the Compliance
Order.9
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Petition for Reconsideration is granted.
_____________________________ ________________________
Linda Daugherty Date Issued
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
7 Petition at 7, citing Buckeye Partners, LP, Withdrawal of Notice Letter, CPF No. 1-2024-053-NOPV (Mar. 31,
2025), available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12024053NOPV. The Region did not explain
the reason for withdrawing the probable violation, but any such reasoning would carry no precedential weight.
8 PHMSA previously issued a regulatory interpretation that examined whether a breakout tank with a concrete pad
and liner was “buried” under section 195.563(a), see Interpretation P-20-0014 to Mr. Matthew Williamson for
Chemoil Terminals Corp. (Jan. 10, 2022), but that interpretation was withdrawn for further consideration, see Letter
to Mr. Williamson (Jul. 21, 2025), available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/pi-20-0014-0.
9 In its Petition, Petitioner raised several other arguments for withdrawing Item 5, including that sections 195.563(a)
and 195.565 do not require cathodic protection for some buried breakout tanks. Because PHMSA’s finding that
tanks 510 and 511 are not buried is dispositive, it unnecessary to consider Petitioner’s remaining arguments.

42024015NOPV_Closure Letter_07102026_(22-232769)_text.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630
Houston TX 77074
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com
July 10, 2026
Thomas E. Long
Co-Chief Executive Officer
Energy Transfer, LP
8111 Westchester Dr.
Dallas, Texas 75225
CPF 4-2024-015-NOPV
Dear Mr. Long:
On September 26, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Sunoco Pipeline LP a Final Order, and on February 11, 2026, granted a Petition for
Reconsideration in the above-referenced case. The Final Order, as modified by the decision on
reconsideration, 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 the Final Order, as
modified.
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,
R.M. Seeley
Acting Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Daniel Wentworth, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
Daniel.wentworth@energytransfer.com



Chad Ingalls, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
Chad.ingalls@energytransfer.com
Todd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.stamm@energytransfer.com
Jennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,
jennifer.street@energytransfer.com
Keegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,
keegan.pieper@energytransfer.com
Matthew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,
matthew.stork@energytransfer.com
Todd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com
Susie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
susie.sjulin@energytransfer.com
Anne Blankenship, Chief Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,
anne.blankenship@energytransfer.com

42024015NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(22-232769)_text.pdf

September 26, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com
Thomas E. Long
Co-Chief Executive Officer
Sunoco Pipeline LP, an Energy Transfer Partnership
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas 75225
Re: CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV
Dear Mr. Long:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $36,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Sunoco Pipeline LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms
are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of
transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Daugherty
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
gregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Sunoco Pipeline LP, ) CPF No. 4-2024-015-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From June 6 through December 1, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) and New York Department of Public Service, conducted an on-site pipeline safety
inspection of the facilities and records of Sunoco Pipeline LP’s (Sunoco or Respondent) Big
Flats to Montello pipeline system in New York and Montello, Pennsylvania. The pipeline
extends from Pennsylvania through New York and to the Montello terminal. At the Montello
terminal there are breakout tanks and storage tanks for storage and movement of products stored.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated March 25, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 CFR Part 195,
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $36,600 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Effective May
20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy to use the version of the
Civil Penalty Worksheet in effect when the alleged violation occurred. The new policy modified
the proposed civil penalty in this case.1The Notice also included an additional two warning items
pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205, which warned Respondent to correct the probable violations or
face possible future enforcement action.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Sunoco timely responded to the
Notice by letter dated May 17, 2024 (Response). Respondent contested one of the allegations
and offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not request a
hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 Southwest Region informed Respondent of the new penalty policy and case file policy via letter dated July 16,
2025. Respondent confirmed receipt via email July 17, 2025.



2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(d), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,
inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure
regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is
functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from
the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in
which it is used.
(b) . . . .
(c) . . . .
(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section for inspection and testing of pressure control equipment apply
to the inspection and testing of overfill protection systems.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(d) by failing to inspect and test
each overfill protection system to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical
condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the
service in which it is used at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year. Specifically, Sunoco failed to inspect the overfill protection devices on twenty-two (22)
breakout tanks at the Montello, Pennsylvania station in 2020 and 2021.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(d) by failing to inspect and
test each overfill protection system to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good
mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation
for the service in which it is used.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.49, which states:
§ 195.49 Annual report.



3
Each operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA F
7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the
end of the previous year. An operator must submit the annual report by
June 15 each year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must
be submitted by August 15, 2011. A separate report is required for crude
oil, HVL (including anhydrous ammonia), petroleum products, carbon
dioxide pipelines, and fuel grade ethanol pipelines. For each state a pipeline
traverses, an operator must separately complete those sections on the form
requiring information to be reported for each state.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.49 by failing to annually complete
and submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility
operated. Specifically, Sunoco failed to submit complete and accurate annual reports for 2019,
2020, 2021, and 2022 with respect to bare pipe mileage.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.49 by failing to annually complete
and submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility
operated.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to
protect the high consequence area? —
(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent
and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high
consequence area. These measures include conducting a risk analysis of the
pipeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safety or
environmental protection. Such actions may include, but are not limited to,
implementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring of
cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter
inspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying
the systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing additional
training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local
emergency responders and adopting other management controls.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to conduct a risk
analysis of each pipeline facility that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) to identify
additional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Specifically, Sunoco
failed to conduct a risk analysis in line with Section 5.2 of Energy Transfer, LP’s Pipeline Integrity
Management Plan (Rev. 6, Feb. 1, 2022), which required Sunoco to conduct a facility threat/risk
analysis for new facilities and/or newly determined existing facilities within 15 months of the HCA
determination and to conduct the assessment within 5 years at the Tonawanda/Buffalo Sun and
Rochester Sun/Alaskan facilities.



4
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to conduct a
risk analysis of each pipeline facility that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) to identify
additional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(c), which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) . . . .
(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you
must provide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(c) by failing to provide
protection against corrosion that was found during an inspection. Specifically, photos from an
inspection on GForm 311650 at Berne Junction in the Montello area showed corrosion on the
valve body that required remediation, but no remediation was taken.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(c) by failing to provide
protection against corrosion that was found during an inspection.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a), which states:
§ 195.563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?
(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated, replaced, or
otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c) must have cathodic
protection. The cathodic protection must be in operation not later than 1 year after
the pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed, as
applicable.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a) by failing to have cathodic
protection in operation not later than one (1) year after its pipeline is constructed, relocated,
replaced, or otherwise changed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco replaced the tank
bottoms on tanks 510 and 511 at the Montello station on May 4, 2006, and August 9, 2004,
respectively and failed to install cathodic protection.
In its Response, Sunoco argued that cathodic protection was unnecessary for Tanks 510 and 511
at the Montello Station and therefore Sunoco could not be in violation of section 195.563(a).
Sunoco referenced section 195.565 which states that, operators do not “need to comply with
ANSI/API RP 651 when installing any tank for which [an operator] note[s] in the corrosion
control procedures established under section 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain
provisions of ANSI/API RP 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.” Sunoco stated that
Tanks 510 and 511 have double tank bottoms and that cathodic protection is only effective for
corrosion control if it is possible to pass electrical current between the anode and cathode (tank
bottom), which Sunoco argued is not possible for double tank bottoms. Sunoco further argued



5
that the tank bottoms for Tanks 510 and 511 are not resting on a corrosive environment because
of the concrete foundations with a liquid impervious liner underneath. Sunoco further stated that
Section 7.2 and Appendix B of Energy Transfer Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).HLD.48,
Installation of Cathodic Protection on Breakout Tanks (Apr. 1, 2018) outlines the reasons why
cathodic protection would be ineffective for tank with a double bottom. In addition, Sunoco
stated that the electronic resistance (ER) corrosion rate of the steel in the environment the tank
bottoms are in contact with are negligible and provided data.
Sunoco stated that it had sufficient justification for not complying with § 195.563(a) because, 1.
cathodic protection was unnecessary for tanks due to API RP 651; 2. there are limitations with
regards to cathodic protection of double tank bottoms; 3. there are limitations with regards to
cathodic protection when there is an impervious liner, and; 4. the ER data was inconclusive.
Tanks 510 and 511 are breakout tanks. The definition of pipeline includes breakout tanks.2
Section 195.563(a) requires that “[e]ach buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed,
relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c) must have
cathodic protection” (emphasis added). The word “must” in the regulation creates a legal
obligation, in this case a legal obligation to have cathodic protection on the pipeline. This
obligation is established if the pipeline meets two requirements: 1. it is buried or submerged, and
2. it is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in §
195.401(c).3 A buried pipeline is one that is covered or in contact with soil.4
Tanks 510 and 511 meet both requirements established in § 195.563(a) and, therefore, Sunoco
must have cathodic protection for the tanks. Tanks 510 and 511 are in contact with soil and
Tanks 510 and 511 were otherwise changed in 2006 and 2004, respectively. Therefore, Sunoco
must install cathodic protection on its tanks and may not forego cathodic protection for any
reason.
Sunoco argued four additional points that are moot due to the legal obligation to install cathodic
protection established by § 195.563(a). However, I shall address them each briefly.
Sunoco incorrectly interpreted § 195.565 incorporated by reference standards for installing
cathodic protection on breakout tanks under § 195.563(a). This section provides flexibility for
how cathodic protection is installed respective to API RP 651. It does not allow the operator an
option to do without cathodic protection, as Sunoco stated.5 PHMSA has considered and
2 49 C.F.R § 195.2 “[p]ipeline or pipeline system” to mean “all parts of a pipeline facility through which a hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide moves in transportation, . . . , and breakout tanks.”
3 The applicable date being March 31, 1970.
4 49 C.F.R § 195.553.
5 Sunoco Response at 5. In their Response Sunoco quoted the second half of § 195.565 “you must install the system
in accordance with ANSI/API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, you don’t need to comply
with ANSI/API RP 651 when installing any tank for which you note in the corrosion control procedures established
under § 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain provisions of ANSI/API RP 651 is not necessary for the
safety of the tank” in order to imply that cathodic protection was optional. However, Sunoco failed to quote the
preceding sentence of the regulation “After October 2, 2000 ,when you install cathodic protection under §



6
rejected an argument analogous to Sunoco’s before, where the operator argued that it was not
required to install cathodic protection on a breakout tank due to the language in § 195.565.6
However, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety rejected this argument stating Ҥ
195.563 is clear from its title and text of the rule that each breakout tank in contact with the soil
must have cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is explicitly required by the regulation and
there is no qualification or exception to this statement in the rule.”7 This case is analogous in
fact and the same reasoning should be applied in this case. Sunoco must install cathodic
protection on breakout tanks, but it has the option to explain in its corrosion control procedures
“why complying with all or certain provisions of API RP 651 is not necessary for the safety of
the tank.”8
Sunoco’s technical statements are not correct. Contrary to Section 7.2 of the SOP.HLD.48,9
cathodic protection is effective on double bottom tanks when installed correctly. API RP 651
(1997)10 includes, in sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.4.3, guidance for installing a cathodic protection
system on double bottom breakout tanks. Further, Sunoco alleges cathodic protection is
unnecessary if the tank has an impervious liner underneath. However, Section 7.2.5 of API RP
651 provides guidance for how to install cathodic protection in the instance a tank bottom has an
impervious liner underneath.
Finally, Sunoco argued that electrical resistance corrosion probe data indicates that the corrosion
rate for steel in the same environment as the tank bottoms was negligible. Sunoco stated this
meant cathodic protection was unnecessary. However, this argument is moot because, as already
stated, regulations do not permit operators to forego cathodic protection. The data from the
probe does not change Sunoco’s regulatory obligation.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR
§ 195.563(a) by failing to have cathodic protection in operation not later than one (1) year after
its pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise changed.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
195.563(a) to protect the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank of more than 500 barrels 79.49m3 capacity built
to API Spec 12F (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), API
Std 650 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or API Std 650's predecessor, Standard 12C, you must install the
system in accordance with ANSI/API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) (emphasis added).”
6 See Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., CPF No. 4-2013-5007.
7 See id.
8 49 CFR § 195.565; see also See Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., CPF No. 4-2013-5007 (holding “[a]n operator
who documents why it is unnecessary to comply with API RP 651 when installing cathodic protection is permitted
to install the cathodic protection in a manner that does not follow the recommended practice. Nothing in the
regulation permits an operator to avoid installation of cathodic protection entirely.”).
9 See Sunoco SOP.HLD, Section 7.2 “installation of cathodic protection may not be feasible and effective in all
cases, such as with floor replacements in existing tanks using a double bottom configuration.”
10 API RP 651(1991) was incorporated by reference at the time the changes were made to Tanks 510 and 511.



7
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty exceeding
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, with a maximum administrative civil
penalty exceeding $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.11
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 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; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $36,600 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR §
195.428(d), for failing to inspect and test each overfill protection system to determine that it is
functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of
capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used at intervals not exceeding
15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Sunoco neither contested the allegation nor
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $36,600 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.428(d).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
Federal regulations (49 CFR § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer
through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.
Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire
transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation
Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 CFR § 901.9 and 49 CFR § 89.23. Pursuant to those same
authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not
made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in
referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the
United States.
11 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.



8
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 CFR §§ 195.49, 195.452(i)(1), 195.583(c), and 195.563(a), 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.
In its Response, Respondent agreed to complete the proposed compliance order for Items 2, 3,
and 4.
With regard to the violation of § 195.563(a) (Item 5), Respondent argued the compliance terms
should be withdrawn. Respondent argued that cathodic protection was not necessary for the
safety of the tank and therefore it need not comply with the PCO. Sunoco also stated its existing
procedure satisfies the proposed compliance order.
For the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn as set forth below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 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 § 195.49 (Item 2), Respondent must revise and
resubmit its previously submitted annual reports to accurately reflect the amount
of bare pipe mileage and provide copies to the Director, Southwest Region within
30 days of receipt of the Final Order.
2. With respec
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 43744