{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42025054NOPSO","title":"SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Safety Order","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2025-02-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN safety order.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025054nopso.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025054nopso.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025054nopso","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42025054NOPSO","body":"Safety Order involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. The dataset does not identify a cited regulation for this case. The case was opened on 2025-02-13 and is reported as open. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42025054NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_05022025_(25-332048).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025054NOPSO/42025054NOPSO_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_05022025_(25-332048).pdf\n\n42025054NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_05022025_(25-332048)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025054NOPSO/42025054NOPSO_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_05022025_(25-332048)_text.pdf\n\n42025054NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_02132025_(25-332048).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025054NOPSO/42025054NOPSO_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_02132025_(25-332048).pdf\n\n42025054NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_02132025_(25-332048)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025054NOPSO/42025054NOPSO_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_02132025_(25-332048)_text.pdf\n\n42025054NOPSO_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Informal Consultation_02192025_(25-332048).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025054NOPSO/42025054NOPSO_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Consultation_02192025_(25-332048).pdf\n\n42025054NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_05022025_(25-332048)_text.pdf\n\nMay 2, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, TX 75225\nCPF No. 4-2025-054-NOPSO\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Sunoco Pipeline, LP,\nwhich was executed on April 30, 2025. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by\nelectronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt,\nor as otherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement\ncc: Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nGreg McIlwain, Executive Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nEric Amundsen, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\n\n\n\neric.amundsen@energytransfer.com\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP,\ntodd.stamm@energytransfer.com\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President, 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, Technical 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\nVince Murchison, Murchison O’Neill PLLC, vince.murchison@pipelinelegal.com\nHaley O’Neill, Murchison O’Neill PLLC, haley.oneill@pipelinelegal.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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSunoco Pipeline LP, ) CPF No. 4-2025-054-NOPSO\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letter dated February 13, 2025 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) to\nSunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent).1\nIn accordance with 49 CFR § 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions exist on the Twin Oaks\nDischarge Pipeline System that pose an integrity risk to public safety, property, or the\nenvironment. The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain corrective measures to\nremedy the alleged conditions and ensure that the public, property, and the environment are\nprotected from the potential risk.\nIn response to the Notice, Respondent requested an informal consultation, whereupon the parties\nengaged in good-faith settlement discussions that have resulted in the Consent Agreement\nattached to this Consent Order that settles all of the allegations in the Notice.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nConsent Order. Sunoco is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement\npursuant to its terms.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in\nthe assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, or in\nreferral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 CFR § 190.5.\n______________________ ______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n1 Sunoco is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP.\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSunoco Pipeline LP, ) CPF No. 4-2025-054-NOPSO\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nOn January 31, 2025, pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), initiated\nan investigation of Sunoco Pipeline, LP’s (Sunoco or Respondent)2 Twin Oaks Discharge\nPipeline system (Twin Oaks Pipeline or Pipeline) in Upper Makefield Township, Bucks County,\nPennsylvania. The Twin Oaks Pipeline is a 14-inch diameter pipeline that transports petroleum\nproducts, including jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline, from the Twin Oaks Terminal in Aston,\nPennsylvania, to the Newark Terminal in Newark, New Jersey.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 13, 2025, a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 CFR § 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions exist on Respondent’s\npipeline system that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment.\nThe Notice also proposed that Sunoco take certain corrective measures to remedy the alleged\nconditions and ensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the\nalleged integrity risk.\nOn February 19, 2025, Sunoco responded to the Notice by submitting a written response and\nrequest for an informal consultation under 49 CFR § 190.239(b)(2). The first informal\nconsultation was held on March 5, 2025. As a result of the informal consultation, PHMSA and\nRespondent (the Parties) agree that settlement of this proceeding by entry into this Consent\nAgreement (Agreement) is the most appropriate means of resolving the issues raised in the\nNotice, will avoid further administrative proceedings or litigation, and is in the public interest.\nTherefore, pursuant to 49 CFR §§ 190.219 and 190.239(b)(2), without adjudication of any issue\nof law or fact, and upon consent and agreement, the Parties agree to the following terms and\nconditions.\n2 Sunoco is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP.\n\n\n\nI. General Provisions\n1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to\nthe Notice, Respondent and its referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of the\nFederal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative\norders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent acknowledges that it\nreceived proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims\nupon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and\norders issued thereunder.\n2. Respondent agrees, for purposes of this Agreement, to address integrity risk on the\nTwin Oaks Pipeline by completing the actions specified in Section II of this Agreement\n(Corrective Measures) and to abide by the terms of this Agreement.\n3. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s\nrepresentative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending\nthat the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative\norder (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement\nconstitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted,\nthe Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\n4. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any\nfurther procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including\nall rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except for the Dispute Resolution\nprovisions set forth herein.\n5. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its\nofficers, directors, and employees, and its successors and assigns, or other entities or persons\notherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any\nincorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents\nwhose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\n6. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline\nsystem referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the\ntransfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\n7. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement.\nThe Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating\nto settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement.\n8. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,\net seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters\n\n\n\nPHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to\nbring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal law.\n9. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to Respondent’s Twin Oaks pipeline. This Agreement is not a\npermit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nRespondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable\nFederal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n10. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third\nparty not a party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any\ninjuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its\nofficers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. The U.S.\nDepartment of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives shall not be\nliable for any cause of action arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors\nin carrying out any work required by this Agreement.\n11. This Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or\nregulation and may not be used in any civil or administrative proceeding of any kind as evidence\nor proof of any fact, fault, or liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation,\nor requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.\nII. Corrective Measures:\nFor the purposes of this Agreement:\n“Affected Pipeline” refers to the entire Twin Oaks Pipeline, which is approximately 105.5\nmiles in length from the Twin Oaks Terminal in Aston, Pennsylvania, to the Newark\nTerminal in Newark, New Jersey.\n“Failure” refers to the failure of the Affected Pipeline in Upper Makefield Township,\nBucks County, Pennsylvania, discovered on January 31, 2025.\n12. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, Respondent agrees to perform the\nCorrective Measures set forth below.\n13. Operating Pressure Restriction. Sunoco must implement and maintain a twenty\npercent (20%) pressure reduction in the highest actual operating pressure along the entire length\nof the Affected Pipeline, such that the operating pressure does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of\nthe highest actual operating pressure in effect within the 60-days prior to the discovery of the Failure\non January 31, 2025. Specifically, the pressure may not exceed the currently restricted pressure\nof 880 pounds per square inch (psi).\na. This pressure restriction is to remain in effect until written approval to increase the\npressure or return the pipeline to its pre-Failure operating pressure is obtained from the\nDirector.\n\n\n\nb. Within 15 days of receipt of the Consent Order, Sunoco must provide the Director the\nactual operating pressures of each pump station and each main line pressure regulating\nstation on the Affected Pipeline at the time of the Failure discovered on January 31,\n2025, and the reduced pressure restriction set points at these same locations.\nc. This pressure restriction requires any relevant remote or local alarm limits, software\nprogramming set-points or control points, and mechanical over-pressure devices to be\nadjusted accordingly.\nd. When determining the pressure restriction set-points, Sunoco must consider any in-line\ninspection (ILI) features or anomalies present in the Affected Pipeline to provide for\ncontinued safe operation while further corrective actions are completed.\ne. Sunoco must review the pressure restriction monthly by analyzing the operating\npressure data, considering any ILI features or anomalies present in the Affected Pipeline.\nSunoco must immediately reduce the operating pressure to maintain the safe operations\nof the Affected Pipeline, if warranted by the monthly review. Further, Sunoco must\nsubmit the results of the monthly review to the Director including, at a minimum, the\ncurrent discharge set-points (including any additional pressure reductions), and\nany pressure exceedance at discharge set-points.\n14. Type A Sleeve Integrity Plan. Within 90 days of receipt of the Consent Order,\nSunoco must provide to the Director for approval a plan to evaluate the integrity of each Type A\nsleeve on the Affected Pipeline. For each Type A sleeve, this must include the most accurate\ninformation available regarding, at a minimum, the year of installation, a summary of the basis\nfor the original application (i.e., remediated condition), and identification of any scheduled\nfollow-up actions. The plan must also provide for the removal of each Type A sleeve on the\nAffected Pipeline whose integrity cannot be reasonably assured. The plan must be part of the\nRemedial Work Plan developed in Item 15 below. For any sleeve not removed, the plan must\nprovide a technical justification for the Type A Sleeve remaining on the Affected Pipeline and\ndescribe the additional pipeline integrity management measures to be implemented to ensure the\nsafety and integrity of the Affected Pipeline in light of any integrity risk related to the sleeve.\n15. Remedial Work Plan (RWP). Within 90 days of receipt of the Consent Order,\nSunoco must submit a Remedial Work Plan (RWP) to the Director for prior approval. The initial\nRWP will be updated as needed to incorporate new and relevant information obtained during the\nfailure investigation and remedial activities undertaken pursuant to the Consent Order, and/or to\nincorporate reasonable and technically supported modifications required by the Director. Sunoco\nwill submit any plan revisions to the Director for approval.\na. b. The Director may approve the RWP incrementally without approving the entire RWP.\nUpon approval by the Director, the RWP becomes incorporated by reference into the\nConsent Order.\nc. d. Sunoco will implement the RWP as it is approved by the Director, including any\nrevisions to the plan.\nThe RWP must specify the tests, inspections, assessments, evaluations, and remedial\nmeasures Respondent will use to verify the integrity of the Affected Pipeline. It must\n\n\n\ne. address all known or suspected factors and causes of the Failure discovered on January\n31, 2025. Sunoco must consider the risks and consequences of another failure to\ndevelop a prioritized schedule for RWP-related work along the Affected Pipeline.\nThe RWP must include a procedure or process to:\ni. Identify pipe in the Affected Pipeline with characteristics similar to the\ncontributing factors identified for the Failure discovered on January 31, 2025.\nii. Gather all data necessary to review the failure history (in service and pressure test\nfailures) of the Affected Pipeline and to prepare a written report containing all the\navailable information such as the locations, dates, and causes of leaks and\nfailures.\niii. iv. Integrate the results of the metallurgical testing, root cause failure analysis, and\nother corrective actions required by the Consent Order with all relevant pre-\nexisting operational and assessment data for the Affected Pipeline. Pre-existing\noperational data includes, but is not limited to, design, construction, operations,\nmaintenance, testing, repairs, prior metallurgical analyses, and any third-party\nconsultation information. Pre-existing assessment data includes, but is not limited\nto, ILI tool runs, hydrostatic pressure testing, direct assessments, close interval\nsurveys, and DCVG/ACVG surveys.\nDetermine if conditions similar to those contributing to the Failure discovered on\nJanuary 31, 2025, are likely to exist elsewhere on the Affected Pipeline.\nv. Conduct additional field tests, inspections, assessments, and evaluations to\ndetermine whether, and to what extent, the conditions associated with the Failure\ndiscovered on January 31, 2025, and other failures from the failure history (see\n(e)(ii) above) on the Affected Pipeline. At a minimum, this process must consider\nall failure causes and specify the use of one or more of the following:\n1) ILI tools that are technically appropriate for assessing the pipeline system\nbased on the cause of the Failure discovered on January 31, 2025, and that\ncan reliably detect and identify anomalies,\n2) Hydrostatic pressure testing,\n3) Stress corrosion cracking surveys; and\n4) Other tests, inspections, assessments, and evaluations appropriate for the\nfailure causes.\nNote: Sunoco may use the results of previous tests, inspections, assessments, and\nevaluations if approved by the Director, provided the results of the tests,\ninspections, assessments, and evaluations are analyzed with regard to the factors\nknown or suspected to have caused the Failure discovered on January 31, 2025.\nvi. Describe the inspection and repair criteria Sunoco will use to prioritize, excavate,\nevaluate, and repair anomalies, imperfections, and other identified integrity\nthreats. Include a description of how any defects will be graded and a schedule\nfor repairs or replacement.\n\n\n\nf. vii. Based on the known history and condition of the Affected Pipeline, describe the\nmethods Sunoco will use to repair, replace, or take other corrective measures to\nremediate the conditions associated with the pipeline Failure discovered on January\n31, 2025, and to address other known integrity threats along the Affected Pipeline.\nThe repair, replacement, or other corrective measures must meet the criteria\nspecified in (e)(vi) above.\nInclude a proposed schedule for completion of the RWP.\n16. Failure History Evaluation. Within 120 days of receipt of the Consent Order,\nSunoco must complete an investigation to determine to the extent possible when the Failure\ndiscovered on January 31, 2025 began. This investigation must include a comprehensive\nanalysis of any odor complaints, SCADA, leak detection, surveillance, and other monitoring\nsystems on the Affected Pipeline. A final report of this investigation will be provided to the\nDirector and the conclusions of such will provide structure to the subsequent evaluation of the\neffectiveness and capability of the current leak detection system employed on the Affected\nPipeline (Item 17).\n17. Evaluation of the Leak Detection System. Within 120 days of the completion\nof Item 16, Sunoco must complete an evaluation of the effectiveness and capability of Sunoco’s\nleak detection system on the Affected Pipeline, including main lines, stub lines, and delivery\nlines with particular focus on the conditions surrounding the Failure discovered on January 31,\n2025 and those identified via the completion of Item 16. At a minimum, Sunoco’s evaluation\nmust consider the following factors; length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the\nswiftness of leak detection, limitations on detectable quantities, location of nearest response\npersonnel, and leak history. This evaluation must also consider maximum operating pressure\n(MOP), normal operating pressures, flow rates (or throughput), and impacts from any pressure\ncycles or operational changes. For mainline segments that could affect high consequence areas\n(HCAs), Sunoco’s evaluation must consider the pipeline’s proximity to the HCA and risk\nassessment results.\na. Based on the collective findings of Items 16 and 17, evaluate potential corrective\nmeasures to improve the effectiveness of Sunoco’s leak detection system where\npossible on the Affected Pipeline. Sunoco must consider the latest advancements in\ntechnology that present the potential to improve the capability of its leak detection\nsystem on the Affected Pipeline to detect the type of leak for the Failure discovered on\nJanuary 31, 2025. To the extent any corrective measures are identified that would\ndemonstrably result in improving the capability of the leak detection system to detect\nleaks that could potentially affect public safety, property, or the environment, similar\nto leaks with characteristics common to the Failure discovered on January 31, 2025,\nSunoco will implement such corrective measures.\nb. Evaluate Sunoco’s written plans and procedures for inspection and maintenance that\naddress leak detection, right-of-way inspection and repairs and determine the extent to\nwhich the written plans contribute to the prevention of hazardous leaks. Based on the\nfindings, determine appropriate amendments to improve the extent to which the plans\ncontribute to the elimination of hazardous leaks.\n\n\n\nc. Evaluate the effectiveness of Sunoco’s ROW inspection program as it pertains to leak\ndetection. This evaluation must consider any geographic regions or features (i.e., HCAs\nand other sensitive areas) that may require specific or additional means of patrol. Based\non the findings, determine corrective measures to improve the effectiveness of\nSunoco’s ROW inspection program relative to leak detection.\nd. Implement continuing long-term periodic testing and integrity verification measures to\nensure the ongoing safe operation of the Affected Pipeline considering the results of the\nanalyses, inspections, evaluations, and corrective measures undertaken pursuant to the\nOrder.\n18. Third-Party Facilitator. Items 16 and 17 must each be facilitated by separate\npersonnel from a third-party with relevant expertise approved by the Director. Any\ndocumentation from the third-party facilitators must be included in each required submission\nto the Director.\n19. Instrumented Leakage Survey. Within 30 days after the Consent Order is\nissued, Sunoco must perform a ground instrument leakage survey or an excavation and evaluation\nof the remaining Type A sleeve locations on the Affected Pipeline. Sunoco must investigate all\nleak indications and remedy all leaks discovered. Sunoco must submit documentation of this\nsurvey to the Director within 45 days after the Consent Order is issued.\n20. Mechanical and Metallurgical Testing. Within 45 days after the Consent Order\nis issued, Sunoco must complete mechanical and metallurgical testing and failure analysis of the\nfailed pipe, including an analysis of soil samples and any foreign materials. Mechanical and\nmetallurgical testing must be conducted by an independent third-party acceptable to the Director\nand must document the decision-making process and all factors contributing to the Failure.\nRespondent must complete the testing and analysis as follows:\na. Document the chain-of-custody when handling and transporting the failed pipe section\nand other evidence from the Failure site.\nb. c. Within 10 days of receipt of the Consent Order, develop and submit the testing protocol\nand the proposed testing laboratory to the Director for prior approval.\nPrior to beginning the mechanical and metallurgical testing, provide the Director with\nthe scheduled date, time, and location of the testing to allow for an OPS representative\nto witness the testing.\nd. Ensure the testing laboratory distributes all reports whether draft or final in their\nentirety to the Director at the same time they are made available to Respondent.\n21. Root Cause Failure Analysis. Within 120 days after the Consent Order is issued,\ncomplete a root cause failure analysis (RCFA) and submit a final report of this RCFA to\nthe Director. The RCFA must be supplemented or facilitated by an independent third-party\nacceptable to the Director and must document the decision-making process and all factors\ncontributing to the Failure. The final report must include findings, and any lessons learned and\nwhether the findings and lessons learned are applicable to other locations within the Affected\nPipeline system.\n\n\n\n22. Emergency Response Plan and Training Review. Within 90 days of receipt of\nthe Consent Order, Sunoco must review and assess the effectiveness of its emergency response\nplan with regards to the Failure. Sunoco must include in the review and assessment the on- scene\nresponse and support, coordination, and communication with emergency responders and public\nofficials. Sunoco must also include a review and assessment of the effectiveness of its\nemergency training program. Sunoco must amend its emergency response plan and emergency\ntraining, if necessary, to reflect the results of this review. The documentation of this Emergency\nResponse Plan and Training Review must be available for inspection by OPS or provided to the\nDirector, if requested.\n23. Public Awareness Program Review. Sunoco must review and assess the\neffectiveness of its Public Awareness program with regards to the Failure. Sunoco must amend\nits Public Awareness Program, if necessary, to reflect the results of this review. The\ndocumentation of this Public Awareness Plan Program Review must be available for inspection\nby OPS or provided to the Director, if requested.\n24. Extensions of Time. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance\nwith any of the terms of the Agreement upon a written request timely submitted demonstrating\ngood cause for the extension. The Director shall respond in writing to any such request.\nIII. Review and Approval Process:\n25. With respect to any submission under Section II (Corrective Measures) of this\nAgreement that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or\nin part, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specified, reasonable conditions; (c)\ndisapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the foregoing. If the\nDirector approves, approves in part, or approves with conditions, Respondent will take all\nactions as approved by the Director, subject to Respondent’s right to invoke the dispute\nresolution procedures in Section IV with respect to any conditions the Director identifies. If the\nDirector disapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent a\nwritten notice of the deficiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies within the time\nspecified by the Director and resubmit the submission for approval.\nIV. Dispute Resolution:\n26. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes\narising under this Agreement, including any decision of the Director under the terms of Section\nII (Corrective Measures). If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the\ndispute within 15 business days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director,\nRespondent may submit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. Such request must be made in writing and provided\nto the Director, counsel for the Southwest Region, and to the Associate Administrator, no later\nthan 10 business days following the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this\nparagraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with\nall information Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate\nAdministrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action and be subject to judicial\n\n\n\nreview. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will\nnot excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed\nunder this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by\nRespondent and the Director or the Associate Administrator in writing.\nV. Enforcement:\n27. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA\nunder 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 190, including administrative civil penalties\nunder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $272,926 per violation for each day the violation continues and\nreferral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that\nRespondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with the\ndeterminations made by the Director, or in accordance with decisions of the Associate\nAdministrator if resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution process herein. The maximum civil\npenalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223. All work plans and\nassociated schedules set forth or referenced in Section II are automatically incorporated into this\nAgreement and are enforceable in the same manner.\nVI. Effective Date:\n28. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order\nis executed by the Associate Administrator incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The\nDirector shall consider the actions that Respondent performed after the Failure and prior to the\nEffective Date of this Agreement in determining whether Respondent has satisfied the terms and\nconditions in Section II (Corrective Measures) of this Agreement.\nVII. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure:\n29. Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, Respondent agrees to maintain\nrecords demonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement for a period of at\nleast five (5) years following completion of all work to be performed, unless a longer period of\ntime is required pursuant to 49 CFR parts 190-199. For any reports, plans, or other deliverables\nrequired to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement, Respondent may assert a claim\nof business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by\nPHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to\nthis Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7. Respondent must mark the claim of\nconfidentiality in writing on each page, and include a statement specifying the grounds for each\nclaim of confidentially. PHMSA determines release of any information submitted pursuant to\nthis Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §\n552, DOT and PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.\nVIII. Modification:\n30. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties.\nSuch modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties.\n\n\n\nIX. Termination:\n31. This Agreement will remain in effect until the Corrective Measures in Section II\nare satisfied, as determined by the Director. The Agreement shall not terminate until the\nDirector confirms, in writing, that the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this\nparagraph. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any of the\nobligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.\nX. Ratification:\n32. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to\nenter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party\nto this document.\n33. The Parties hereby agree to all findings, conditions, and terms of this Agreement.\n[Signature Lines on Following Page]\n\n\n\nFor Sunoco Pipeline LP:\n_______________________________\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President - Operations\n________________________\nDate\nFor PHMSA:\n________________________________________\nBryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\n________________________\nDate\n\n42025054NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_02132025_(25-332048)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nFebruary 13, 2025\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, TX 75225\nCPF No. 4-2025-054-NOPSO\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed is a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) issued in the above-referenced case. The\nNotice proposes that Sunoco Pipeline, LP, take certain measures with respect to the Sunoco Twin\nOaks Discharge pipeline system to ensure pipeline safety. Your options for responding are set\nforth in the Notice. Service of this Notice by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of\ntransmission, or as otherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nWe look forward to a successful resolution to ensure pipeline safety. Please direct any questions\non this matter to me at (713) 773-7215.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Notice of Proposed Safety Order\nCopy of 49 C.F.R. § 190.239\nCc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nGreg McIlwain, Executive Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP\nEric Amundsen, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President, Operations Services, Energy Transfer LP\nKeegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer LP\nMr. Matthew Stork, Vice President, Technical Services, Energy Transfer LP\n\n\n\nMr. Todd Nardozzi, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer LP\nMs. Susie Sjulin, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer LP\nMr. Vince Murchison, Murchison O’Neill PLLC\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nSOUTHWEST REGION\nHOUSTON, TEXAS\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSunoco Pipeline LP, ) CPF No. 4-2025-054-NOPSO\n)\nRespondent )\n____________________________________)\nNOTICE OF PROPOSED SAFETY ORDER\nIntroduction and Purpose\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), is issuing this Notice of Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO or Notice) to Sunoco Pipeline LP\n(Sunoco or Respondent)1 pursuant to the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. § 60117 and 49 CFR §\n190.239. As explained in more detail below, PHMSA has initiated an investigation of the safety\nof Sunoco’s Twin Oaks Discharge pipeline system (Twin Oaks Pipeline or Pipeline) in Upper\nMakefield Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. PHMSA initiated the investigation in\nresponse to a release on the Twin Oaks Pipeline that Sunoco discovered on January 31, 2025\n(Failure).2 The Twin Oaks Pipeline is a hazardous liquid pipeline facility that is subject to\nPHMSA’s jurisdiction pursuant to the Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq., and Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, 49 CFR Parts 190 to 199.\nPHMSA’s ongoing investigation indicates that conditions may exist on the Twin Oaks Pipeline\nthat pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. Specifically,\nPHMSA’s preliminary investigation indicates that the Pipeline experienced a leak in a high\nconsequence area for at least 16 months, resulting in the release of jet fuel that has migrated into\nseveral adjacent water wells and caused additional impacts to property and the environment.\nPHMSA’s preliminary investigation also indicates that the leak originated at a sleeve installed in\nthe mid-1990s, that there are at least 44 other sleeves of a similar vintage installed at other locations\non the Pipeline, and that these locations may be at risk of experiencing a similar leak in the future.\nFor these reasons, it appears that the continued operation of the Twin Oaks Pipeline without\ncorrective measures would pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the\nenvironment.\n1 Sunoco is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.\n2 Sunoco became aware of the release on January 31, 2025, however, the first day of the release is unknown.\n\n\n\nThis NOPSO notifies Sunoco of the preliminary findings of the investigation and proposes that\nSunoco take measures to ensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from\nthe potential risk.\nBackground\nOn September 25, 2023, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PAPUC) notified PHMSA\nof an odor complaint that a resident at 128 Walker Road, Upper Makefield Township,\nPennsylvania, previously reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection\n(PADEP). The resident’s report indicated that there was a strange taste and the smell of gasoline\nin their well water.\nAfter being notified of the odor complaint, PHMSA directed Sunoco to conduct an investigation.\nSunoco responded by testing additional local wells, performing soil testing, and excavating a 25-\nfoot section of the Twin Oaks Pipeline. Sunoco did not discover a leak at that time, and all samples\nindicated a negative result for hydrocarbons.\nOn January 21, 2025, PADEP informed PHMSA that samples obtained from a well at the property\nlocated at 107 Spencer Road, Upper Makefield Township, Pennsylvania, indicated the presence of\nkerosene (a major component of JP-8 jet fuel). PHMSA Accident Investigation Division (AID)\nnotified Sunoco of these results and directed Sunoco to conduct another investigation.\nOn January 31, 2025, Sunoco identified a leak on the Twin Oaks Pipeline after excavating a\npreviously repaired location adjacent to 121 Glenwood Drive, at pipeline station 52/4170\n(2787+30). The leak appeared to be a slow drip from a sleeved portion of the pipeline. The sleeve\nhad been installed in 1995 to reinforce a dent.\nAfter locating the leak, Sunoco shut-in a segment of the Twin Oaks Pipeline by closing valves at\nBucks pump Station, Delaware River (W","truncated":true,"body_characters":73757}