{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42025042WL","title":"SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2025-09-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 190.203.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025042wl.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025042wl.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025042wl","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42025042WL","body":"Warning Letter involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 190.203. The case was opened on 2025-09-11 and is reported as closed as of 2025-09-11. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42025042WL_Warning Letter_09112025_(25-332048).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025042WL/42025042WL_Warning%20Letter_09112025_(25-332048).pdf\n\n42025042WL_Warning Letter_09112025_(25-332048)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025042WL/42025042WL_Warning%20Letter_09112025_(25-332048)_text.pdf\n\n42025042WL_Warning Letter_09112025_(25-332048)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston TX 77074\nWARNING LETTER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nSeptember 11, 2025\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nCPF 4-2025-042-WL\nDear Mr. Long:\nFrom August 20 through 21, 2025, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.),\nconducted an inspection of operations and maintenance activities on Sunoco Pipeline, LP’s1\n(Sunoco) Twin Oaks pipeline system in Upper Makefield, Pennsylvania.\nThe operations and maintenance activities were performed pursuant to the Consent Order issued\nby PHMSA in CPF No. 4-2025-054-NOPSO, which addressed integrity risk on the Twin Oaks\npipeline after a failure was discovered on January 31, 2025. Under Paragraph 15 of the Consent\nAgreement, incorporated in the Consent Order, Sunoco must implement a remedial work plan\n(RWP) to repair, replace, or take other corrective measures to remediate the conditions associated\nwith the failure, among other required actions. The August 2025 PHMSA inspection was\nconducted to verify Sunoco compliance with the RWP and applicable regulations and to further\ninvestigate the pipeline failure in accordance with 49 U.S.C. §§ 60108(b), 60117(a), (c), and (d),\nand 60118(a) and (e).\nAs a result of PHMSA’s inspection, it is alleged that Sunoco has committed a probable violation\nof the Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq., and Pipeline Safety Regulations, 49 CFR\nPart 190. The item inspected and the probable violation is:\n1 Sunoco is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, L.P.\n\n\n\n1. 49 U.S.C. §§ 60117 and 60118 and 49 CFR § 190.203.\nSunoco failed to make available to PHMSA all records and information requested pertaining to\ncompliance with the Consent Order and to the investigation of the failure in accordance with 49\nU.S.C. §§ 60117(c)(2), 60118(e)(1)(A) and 49 CFR § 190.203(e). Specifically, Sunoco failed to\nallow PHMSA inspectors to take photographs of field notes created by Sunoco contractors during\nremediation work on the Twin Oaks pipeline.\nUnder the Pipeline Safety Act, PHMSA personnel “may enter premises to inspect the records and\nproperty of a person at a reasonable time and in a reasonable way to decide whether a person is\ncomplying” with the Pipeline Safety Act, its accompanying regulations, and orders issued by\nPHMSA.2 To enable a compliance decision by PHMSA, “the person shall . . . provide information\n[PHMSA] requires” and “make the . . . information available when [PHMSA] requests.”3 If\nPHMSA investigates a pipeline accident, “the operator of the facility shall . . . make available to\n[PHMSA] all records and information that in any way pertain to the accident” and “afford all\nreasonable assistance in the investigation of the accident.”4\nDuring field inspections on August 20 and 21, 2025 in Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery\nCounties, Pennsylvania, PHMSA personnel requested to take photographs of handwritten notes\ncreated by certified welding inspector (CWI) contractors hired by Sunoco to perform cutouts and\nrepairs on the Twin Oaks pipeline. The information captured in the handwritten CWI notes likely\nincluded (among other things) pipe end specifications, such as bevel angle, land and gap\nmeasurements, and temperature; and welding parameters checks, such as amperage, travel speed,\nand voltage. The contractors refused to allow PHMSA personnel to take such photographs.\nFollowing the refusal, on August 22, 2025, PHMSA issued to Sunoco a written Request for\nInformation (RFI) which included a request for clear and legible copies of all notes and forms\nutilized in the field, including those notes which PHMSA personnel were denied permission to\nphotograph, at certain dig sites on August 20 through August 21, 2025.\nOn August 25, 2025, Sunoco provided a letter in response to the RFI claiming that it had no\nobligation to provide the CWI notes because the notes were not “official records” and because 49\nCFR § 190.203 “does not authorize PHMSA to go on a fishing expedition and obtain any and all\ndocuments an inspector desires.”5 Sunoco stated that even though “it is standard practice for CWIs\nto take handwritten field notes throughout the welding process,” the notes are “not relevant to\ndetermining compliance” and that Sunoco was only required to provide PHMSA with records that\nSunoco deemed “official.” Notwithstanding, Sunoco indicated that it would comply with the RFI\nunder objection.\n2 49 U.S.C. § 60117(d); see also 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a)(3) (stating that a pipeline operator shall “allow access to or\ncopying of records, make reports and provide information, and allow entry or inspection required under subsections\n(a) through (e) of [49 U.S.C. § 60117]”).\n3 Section 60117(c).\n4 Section 60118(e)(1); see also 49 CFR § 190.203(e) (codifying the same obligation).\n5 Sunoco letter (Aug. 25, 2025).\n2\n\n\n\nSunoco’s refusal on August 20 and 21, 2025 to provide PHMSA with the CWI records during the\nfield inspection constitutes a probable violation of 49 U.S.C. §§ 60117(c)(2), 60118(e)(1)(A) and\n49 CFR § 190.203(e). In addition, the August 25, 2025 written statement from Sunoco that it may\nlimit future responses to PHMSA and provide only information that Sunoco considers “official\nrecords” constitutes a probable violation of 49 U.S.C. §§ 60117(c)(2), 60118(e)(1)(A) and 49 CFR\n§ 190.203(e). The frontline observations of CWIs, including information regarding the\nperformance of welding work performed on the Twin Oaks pipeline, is both relevant to PHMSA’s\ninspection of Sunoco’s compliance with PHMSA regulations and the terms of the Consent Order,\nand relevant to PHMSA’s ongoing accident investigation concerning the Twin Oaks pipeline. Any\ndesignation by Sunoco of information as “official” or otherwise does not in any way restrict\nPHMSA’s ability to request the information or limit Sunoco’s obligation to provide the\ninformation to PHMSA upon request.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$272,926 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,729,245 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after December 28, 2023 and before December\n30, 2024, the maximum penalty may not exceed $266,015 per violation per day the violation\npersists, up to a maximum of $2,660,135 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring\non or after January 6, 2023 and before December 28, 2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$257,664 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,576,627 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after March 21, 2022 and before January 6,\n2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed $239,142 per violation per day the violation persists,\nup to a maximum of $2,391,412 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or\nafter May 3, 2021 and before March 21, 2022, the maximum penalty may not exceed $225,134\nper violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of\nviolations. For violation occurring on or after January 11, 2021 and before May 3, 2021, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a\nmaximum of $2,225,034 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July\n31, 2019 and before January 11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per\nviolation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of\nviolations.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime.\n3\n\n\n\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 4-2025-042-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Todd Nardozzi, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd@nardozzi@energytransfer.com\nCurtis Stambaugh, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer LP,\ncurtis.stambaugh@energytransfer.com\nVince Murchison, Murchison O’Neill PLLC, Vince.Murchison@pipelinelegal.com\nHaley O’Neill, Murchison O’Neill PLLC, Haley.ONeill@pipelinelegal.com\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":9770}