BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY MEGHAN LYNN ROSEMARY FULLER MICHAEL WALSH NANCY HARKINS GERALD MCMULLEN DOCKET NO. CAROLINE HUGHES and MELISSA HAINES Complainants V. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., Respondent NOTICE TO DEFEND Pursuant to 52 Pa. Code ??5.63 and you are hereby noti?ed thatwritten response denying or correcting the enclosed Formal Complaint within twenty (20) days ?om service of this notice, a decision may be rendered against you. All pleadings, such as an Answer, must be ?led with the Secretary of the Public Utility Commission, with a copy served on counsel for Complainants, and where applicable, the Administrative Law Judge presiding over the issue. File with: Rosemary Chiavetta, Secretary Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, Second Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 With a c0py to: Michael S. Bernstein, Esq. Pinnola Bornstein Suite 2126 Land Title Building 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Date: November 19, 201 8 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY CONINIISSION MEGHAN LYNN ROSEMARY FULLER MICHAEL WALSH NANCY HARKINS GERALD MCMULLEN DOCKET NO. CAROLINE HUGHES and MELISSA HAINES Complainants V. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., Respondent FORMAL COMPLAINT COME NOW, Complainants Meghan Rosemary Fuller, Michael Walsh, Nancy Harkins, Gerald McMullen, Caroline Hughes, and Melissa Haines, by and through their attorney, Michael S. Bernstein, Esquire, and respectfully ?le this Formal Complaint pursuant to 52 Pa. Code 5.21, and in support hereof aver the following: INTRODUCTION Sunoco Pipeline LP (?Sunoco?) has repurposed a 1930s~era hazardous liquids pipeline which it now markets as Mariner East 1 to transport hazardous, highbz volatile liquids across the Commonwealth for shipment to locales outside the state. Sunoco has also proposed to construct new HVL pipelines: the 20-inch ?Mariner East 2? or and 16-inch ?Mariner East or Finding itself unable to complete either ME2 or ME2X, Sunoco now preposes as a workaround to cobble together another existing 193 0s~era 12-inch pipeline with various sections of 20-inch ME2 and 16?inch MEZX pipeline segments to begin additional transport of HVLs across the Commonwealth for shipment to locales outside the state. In an abrupt but unannounced change of terminology, Sunoco has begun referring to this cobbled-together hybrid pipeline as In this Complaint, the term ?workaround pipeline? is used to distinguish it from ME2 as originally pr0posed by Sunoco. In both cases?MEI and the workaround pipelme?~?the risk of injury, death, and property damage is signi?cantly greater than in the case of non-HVL pipelines. Applicable federal regulations, enforceable by the Public Utility Commission require that Sunoco give the public adequate notice of procedures to follow in the event of a leak from its HVL pipelines. The notice that Sunoco has given the public, however, does not provide adequate notice of procedures suf?cient to ensure the safety of the public in the event of a leak or rupture of an HV transmission pipeline. Heretofore, it appears that the PUC has simply accepted Sunoco?s ?public awareness program.? This Complaint seeks PUC review of Sunoco?s public awareness program, and in the event the Commission determines that Sunoco is unable to comply with applicable law, a final Order directing respondent to cease operations of the ME 1 and workaround pipelines. PARTIES l. Complainants are: Meghan 212 Lundgren Road, Lenni, PA 19052 (lVliddletown Township, Delaware County). Rosemary Fuller, 226 Valley Road, Media PA 19063 (Middletown Township, Delaware County). (0) Michael Walsh, 12 Hadley Lane, Glen Mills PA 19342 (Thornbury Township, Delaware County). Nancy Harkins, 1521 Woodland Road, West Chester PA 193 82 (Westtown Township, Chester County). Gerald McMullen, 200 Hillside Drive, Exton PA 19341 (West Whiteland Township, Chester County). Caroline Hughes, 1101 Arnal? Drive, West Chester 93 80 (East Goshen Township, Chester County). Melissa Haines, 176 Ronald Road, Aston PA 19014 (Aston Township, Delaware County). 2. Respondent Sunoco is a foreign publicly traded partnership and wholly owned subsidiary of the Texas company Energy Transfer Partners with a place of business in the Commonwealth at 4041 Market Street, Aston, 19014. For purposes of this petition, Complainants allege that reSpondent is a ?public utility? with respect to the operation of the Mariner East pipelines, as de?ned in Section 102 of the Public Utility Code, 66 102. 3. Complainants are represented in this action by Michael S. Bomstein, PA Attorney ID No. 21328, Pinnola Bernstein, Attorneys at Law, with of?ces at Suite 2126, Land Title Building, 100 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19110, telephone number (215) 592?83 83, and an electronic mail address of mbomstein@grnail.com. Complainants request service via electronic mail delivered to counsel at the said email address. JURISDICTION 4. Section 501 of the Public Utility Code, 66 501, provides in pertinent part: the commission shall have full power and authority, and it shall be its duty to enforce, execute and carry out, by its regulations, orders, or otherwise, all and singular, the provisions of this part, and the full intent thereof; and shall have the power to rescind or modify any such regulations or orders. The express enumeration of the powers of the commission in this part shall not exclude any power which the commission would otherwise have under any of the provisions of this part. 5. Section 1505(a) of the Public Utility Code, 66 1505(a), provides: General rule.--Whenever the commission, after reasonable notice and hearing, upon its own motion or upon complaint, ?nds that the service or facilities of any public utility are unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, insuf?cient, or unreasonably discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of this part, the commission shall determine and prescribe, by regulation or order, the reasonable, safe, adequate, suf?cient, service or facilities to be observed, furnished, enforced, or employed, including all such repairs, changes, alterations, extensions, substitutions, or improvements in facilities as shall be reasonably necessary and proper for the safety, accommodation, and convenience of the public. Issues related to the hazardous nature of the petroleum products involved in the pipeline transportation services; protection of public natural resources generally; damage to drinking water supplies in particular; and detrimental impacts on health, safety, welfare and property values implicate ?the reasonableness and safety of the pipeline transportation services or facilities, matters committed to the expertise of the PUC by express statutory language.? Delaware Riverkeeper Network 12. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., 179 A. 3d 670, 682 (Pa. melth. 2018) (citing 66 Pa. 08. 1505). 6. ?Sunoco?s decisions are subject to review by the PUC to determine Whether Sunoco?s service and facilities ?are unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, insuf?cient, or unreasonable, discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the Public Utility Code at 693 (citing 66 Pa. C.S. 1505(a)). 7. Moreover, 52 Pa. Code 59.33 reads in pertinent part: Reaponsibility. Each public utility shall at all times use every reasonable effort to properly warn and protect the public ?orn danger, and shall exercise reasonable care to reduce the hazards to which employees, customers and others may be subjected to by reason of its equipment and facilities. Safes} code. The minimum safety standards for all natural gas and hazardous liquid public utilities in this Commonwealth shall be those issued under the pipeline safety laws as found in 49 U.S.C.A. ??60101~60503 and as implemented at 49 CFR Parts 191?193, 195 and 199, including all subsequent amendments thereto. Future Federal amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191?193, 195 and 199, as amended or modi?ed by the Federal government, shall have the effect of amending or modifying the Cormnission?s regulations with regard to the minimum safety standards for all natural gas and hazardous liquid public utilities. The amendment or modi?cation shall take effect 60 days after the effective date of the Federal amendment or modification, unless the Commission publishes a notice in the Bulletin stating that the amendment or modi?cation may not take effect. [Emphasis added]. De?nition. For the purposes of this section, ?hazardous liquid public utility? means a person or corporation now or hereafter owning or operating in this Commonwealth equipment or facilities for transporting or conveying crude oil, gasoline, petroleum or petroleum products, by pipeline or conduit, for the public for compensation. 8. Thus, the Commission has the authority and responsibility to enforce the provisions of 49 CFR part 195 (specifically, 195.440) on Sunoco?s current and proposed transport of hazardous liquids, including the hazardous, highly volatile liquids it is transporting and proposing to transport in the Commonwealth on its Mariner East system. STANDING 9. Section 701 of the Public Utility Code, 66 701, provides inter alia that . . any person. .. having an interest in the subject may. . .complain in writing, setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility in violation, or claimed violation, of any law which the commission has jurisdiction to administer, or of any regulation or order of the commission.? 10. Within the meaning of 701, Complainants are persons who have an interest in acts done or omitted to be done, or about to be done or omitted to be done, by respondent Sunoco in Violation of laws and regulations which the PUC has jurisdiction to administer and enforce. As set forth more in detail below, Complainants are residents who believe they are at risk from the existing Operation of the 8-inch MEI HVL pipeline; the HVL workaround pipeline whose Operation appears imminent; and the additional Snnoco HVL pipelines which Sunoco may yet attempt to construct. 11. Speci?cally, Complainants contend that MEI is being Operated and the workaround pipeline is about to be operated without an adequate emergency noti?cation system or legally adequate emergency management plan and that, as a result, they are at imminent risk of catastrophic and irreparable loss, including loss of life, serious injury to life, and damage to their homes and property. Complainants, therefore, have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in this matter. 12. Complainants Gerald McMuIlen, Michael Walsh, and Rosemary Fuller all reside within a few hundred feet of the MEI pipeline that Sunoco already uses to transport HVLs or the workaround pipeline, or both. 13. Complainants Meghan and Caroline Hughes have children who attend schools that are within a few hundred feet of the MEI pipeline, the workaround pipeline, or both. 14. Complainant Caroline Hughes has a place of work that is within a few hundred feet of the MEI pipeline, the workaround pipeline, or both. 15. Complainants Meghan Nancy Harkins, Melissa Haines, and Caroline Hughes reside close enough to the MEI pipeline, the workaround pipeline, or both that they might reasonably have to be evacuated in the event of a leak. 16. All Complainants herein regularly travel on roadways along or immediately adjacent to MEI, the workaround pipeline, or both. FACTUAL AVERMENTS The Marin er East Project 17. According to its own website, respondent owns pipelines, terminals, and other assets used in the purchase, transfer and sale of: crude oil; re?ned products such as gasoline, diesel, and jet ?iel; and so-called natural gas liquids including propane, ethane and butane. 18. According to reSpondent, Mariner East is a pipeline project in Delaware, Ohio, and West Virginia to transport NGLs such as propane, ethane, and butane to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex in southeastern and Delaware and other access points for distribution to destinations in and other domestic and international markets. 19. Also according to respondent, is part of the Mariner East project currently being used to transport up to 70,000 barrels a day of natural gas liquids 20. If it becomes operational, the workaround pipeline would increase the volume of hazardous, highly volatile liquids being transported near homes, schools, businesses, senior living facilities, and other densely populated areas by some unknown amount. Highly Volatile Liquids (MS) 21. HVLs are gases (primarily ethane, propane and butane) that have been compressed into liquid form for transportation. These gases emerge ?om wells along with methane (?natural gas?) and must be separated ?om the methane for the most part before the methane can be delivered to customers. 22. HVLs must be kept under high pressure for pumping through pipelines. If the pressure is relieved, the HVLs, being highly volatile, revert to a gaseous state. In that state, when mixed with air at a wide range of concentrations, they are extremely ?ammable or explosive. 23. Because they are also heavier than air, HVLs, in their gaseous state, tend to hug the ground and concentrate in low-lying areas. They do not dissipate as readily as methane, which is lighter than air. HVLs are odorless and colorless, making them dif?cult to detect without specialized equipment. They can move downwind or downhill for long distances while remaining in combustible concentrations. Many ordinary devices ranging ?om vehicles to garage door openers to light switches to doorbells can provide an ignition source. Mariner East I and the Workaround Pipeline: The hazard 0ft: pipeline leak or rupture 24. MEI and the workaround pipeline run through densely populated parts of Chester and Delaware Counties. The majority of the route is in areas that Sunoco itself acknowledges to be ?high?consequence,? meaning that an accident could affect many pe0ple. The HVLs Sunoco proposes to transport, with limited exceptions, are intended for use by the petrochemical industry, not the public, and a route that favors high-consequence areas represents an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to public safety. 25. The recent Citizens Risk Assessment, conducted by Quest Consultants, Inc. of Oklahoma and evaluating risks associated with Mariner East 2 and Mariner East 2X, showed that valve sites for HV pipelines are particularly high?risk areas. 26. One of the valve sites for MEI and the workaround pipeline is adjacent to Duffers, a restaurant and bar with an active kitchen, outdoor smoking Space and parking lot within 50 feet of the valve site. State route 352 is approximately 100 feet from this valve site. Any of these could provide an ignition source in the event of a leak. An accident involving that valve site would endanger large numbers of restaurant patrons and workers and potentially hundreds of neighboring residences. 27. One of the valve sites for the workaround pipeline is located just a few hundred feet from the Glenwood Elementary School that serves 450 students and staff in Middletown Township, Delaware County. Likewise, the Marsh Creek Sixth Grade Center and Shamona Creek Elementary school in Uwchlan Township are both situated just a few hundred feet from a valve station that will now be used for the workaround pipeline. Approximately 1,800 staff and students are present at these two schools each school day. 28. There are many other locations, including some others with valve stations, where dense populations are within the impact zone of an HVL leak. In fact, a large leak at any location along MEI or the workaround pipeline has the potential for fatalities, and there are many locations where dozens or hundreds of fatalities could occur. Sunoco ?s Obligation to Provide a Legally Adeguate Public Awareness Program 29. 49 CFR 195.440 provides in pertinent part that ?[e]ach pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum lnstitute?s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162.. 30. The same regulation provides further that the program must ?assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the operator?s pipeline and facilities.? In addition, subsection states that the program ?must Specifically include provisions to educate the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related activities on. . . [s]teps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline release. . 10 31. The above regulation has been adopted speci?cally at 52 Code Further, the section mandates that, ?[e]ach public utility shall at all times use every reasonable effort to properly warn and protect the public from danger, and shall exercise reasonable care to reduce the hazards to which employees, customers and others may be subjected to by reason of its equipment and facilities.? 32. Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code also states that ?every public utility shall furnish and maintain adequate, ef?cient, safe, and reasonable service and 33. ?Service? as defined in 66 ?102 includes ?any and all acts done. . .in the performance of their duties under this part to the. . .the public.? 34. 66 ?501 also provides that is the duty of the Commission shall be its duty to enforce, execute and carry out, by its regulations, orders, or otherwise, all and singular, the provisions of this part, and the full intent (Emphasis added). 35. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Commission has the authority and the duty to require Sunoco to maintain adequate and safe service and facilities by using every reasonable effort to preperly warn and protect the public from danger, and exercising reasonable care to reduce the hazards to which the public may be subjected to by reason of a release of hazardous, highly volatile liquids during Operations of MEI and the workaround pipeline; and evaluating the public awareness program required by 14 CPR section 195.440 for credibility, suitability and workability. Lack of adequate emergency planning and public awareness 36. Sunoco?s current plan for the public in the event of an HVL pipeline leak is contained in a color lea?et mailed to some residents. (Copy attached hereto as Exhibit The material provisions of respondent?s sole, one-size-?ts-all emergency response 11 plan for the public consists of warning everyone to ?leave the area immediately on foot,? abandon equipment being used in or near the area, avoid open ?ame or other sources of ignition, and call 911 ?orn a safe location. 37. Another, earlier version of Sunoco?s public awareness program document tells evacuees to ?ee the area upwind and not to operate cell phones. (Copy attached as Exhibit 38. In neither document does Sunoco provide any legally adequate information about, inter alia: a. How the public would be informed of a leak and the need to self-evacuate; b. How vulnerable populations such as young children, residents of senior living communities, and persons with disabilities would become aware of a leak; c. How the public is supposed to determine in a dangerous leak situation which way the wind is blowing; d. How vulnerable populations such as young children, residents of senior living communities, and persons with disabilities would be able to proceed on foot; e. How the public would know when it has reached a ?safe area;? f. How the public could call 911 if it is warned not to operate telephones or cell phones; or g. Whether it might be better in some cases to remain indoors than to leave the shelter of a building, and how to make that determination. 39. Complainants believe and aver that Sunoco has failed to provide a credible and workable plan for the self-evacuation of vulnerable individuals including children, adults with disabilities, and elderly. This danger is compounded where there are dense populations of 12 vulnerable individuals such as at schools, facilities for individuals with physical and developmental disabilities, and senior care and nursing facilities. 40. Sunoco has failed to provide any legally adequate guidance about how the public can determine the correct direction in which to self-evacuate, or any information about how the public can tell when a ?safe area? has been reached. Sunoco has failed to explain how the recommended self-evacuation can be carried out by people who are very young, elderly, or of limited mobility, especially at night or during inclement weather. For many people, this suggested guidance is simply implausible and unworkable. 41. In the event of a highly volatile liquids leak without ignition, the safety of those in the probable impact zone relies heavily on anyone near the vapor cloud knowing exactly what to do to avoid ignition. In the case of the recent fatal methane explosions in Lawrence and Andover, MA, emergency responders tried in vain to tell peeple to avoid even turning their lights on or off to avoid ignition. Sunoco has not presented a legally adequate plan for informing the public of the appr0priate action in the event of a leak, given that the most routine of actions, such as turning on a light switch or a ?ashlight to illuminate the way to an exit, might provide an ignition source. 42. Three school district superintendents representing thousands of students, many municipalities, numerous state legislators, and several thousand residents have written to the state clearly outlining that there was not enough information for public awareness and emergency response planning. They have received incomplete and inadequate responses or none at all. 43. Complainants believe and therefore aver that respondent is not only failing to provide proper public awareness, but that it has been intentionally withholding crucial l3 information from the public. Sunoco has repeatedly refused to release its internal hazards analysis or integrity management plan. 44. In light of the foregoing, Complainants believe and aver that Sunoco has failed to provide a legally adequate public awareness pro gain that complies with 49 CFR 195.440. Risk of Catastrophe to Persons and Property Close to Mariner East Pmelines 45. On November 1, 2007, a l2?inch?diarneter pipeline transporting liquid prOpane ruptured in a rural area near Carmichael, Mississippi. The resulting gas cloud, formed ?om the 430,626 gallons of liquid propane that were released, expanded over nearby homes, forming a low?lying cloud of ?ammable gas. The gas found an ignition source about 7 1/2 minutes later. Witnesses miles away reported seeing and hearing a large ?reball and heavy black smoke over the area. In the ensuing fire, two people were killed and seven peOple sustained minor injuries. Four houses were destroyed, and several others were damaged. About 71.4 acres of grassland and woodland were burned. This accident occurred in a sparsely populated area, with only about 200 pe0ple living within a l-rnile radius (about 3 square miles) of the location of the pipeline failure. A similarly sized area in Chester or Delaware Counties (about 3 square miles) might contain thousands of people. The National Transportation Safety Board identified the inadequacy of the pipeline Operator?s public education program as a factor that contributed to the severity of the accident. 46. On Saturday, August 24, 1996, at about 3:26 pm. near Lively, Texas, an 8-inch pipeline transporting butane ruptured. The material volatilized into colorless, odorless, extremely ?ammable gas that stayed close to the ground as it drifted across the surrounding residential area. Danielle Smalley and Jason Stone, both 17 years old, ran to a pickup truck intending to warn neighbors. As they sped away, their truck ignited the vapor. Both suffered fatal thermal injuries. 14 The ?re continued to burn until about 6 pm. the next day, which was how long it took the operator to isolate the failed section. 47. On December 9, 1970, in Franklin County, Missouri, an 8-inch pipeline transporting propane ruptured. Twenty?four minutes later, ?the propane-air mixture exploded, destroyed all buildings at the blast origin, extensively damaged 13 homes within a 2-mile radius [approximately 12 and a half square miles], sheared telephone poles, snapped tree trunks, smashed windows 12 miles away, and registered its impact on a seismograph in St. Louis, 55 miles distant. An expert from the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, determined that the ?detonation and initial ?re consumed [only] 756 barrels of propane, giving rise to an estimated explosive force of 100,000 pounds of There were no fatalities due to the fact that accident occurred in a sparsely populated area while people were awake, and the few peOple in the area used the twenty?four minutes between the release and the explosion to self- evacuate themselves with expedition. 48. The three foregoing cases are only representative examples of the hazard associated with HVL transmission pipelines. Many other serious accidents could be cited. 49. In the event of a leak that it manages to detect, Sunoco intends to notify county emergency reSponse agencies. In Chester and Delaware Counties, these agencies intend to activate their ?reverse 911? capabilities. These services allow an operator to trigger hundreds or thousands of phones in the area of a problem. 50. Both Sunoco and PHMSA, however, advise that phones should not be used. warning is explicit: Use a telephone or cell phone (these can ignite airborne gases)? 15 51. Thus, Chester and Delaware Counties? plans involve taking steps that both reSpondent and the government warn could result in explosions. On information and belief, neither Chester nor Delaware County has evaluated whether the use of their reverse 911 systems might itself provide an ignition source. 52. In addition, in the event of an HVL leak, ?rst responders are instructed not to enter the vicinity due to the possibility of an explosion, therefore any individuals within this perimeter are expected to self-evacuate. 5 3. All of the Complainants in this matter reside within the probable blast zone and/ or evacuation zone of Mariner East. Complainants believe that their residences are located in unsafe proximity to Mariner East. 54. Upon information and belief, if a leak of NGLs from Mariner East were to occur in close proximity to any of the schools that are within a few hundred feet of Mariner East, there could be a ?re or explosion that would place the occupants of the school at risk of death or permanent harm. 55. Complainants believe that no emergency response plan can be deemed safe or legally adequate where, in the event of a leak that results in a combustible vapor cloud, ?rst responders will not be able to evacuate children or other occupants of the area because they are unable to safely enter the vicinity and may, in fact, increase risk of ignition by doing so. 56. Complainants? homes all were constructed prior to the conversion of MEI and the workaround pipeline for HVL transportation. Complainants believe that the risk from leak or rupture of these converted pipelines is significantly higher than it was before they were used for or about to be used to tranSport HVL. l6 57. Sunoco was aware that the repurposing of MEI and the workaround pipeline would create an immediate impact zone in the area of any leak or rupture. 58. Sunoco was aware that that this zone could be one?half mile or more ?om the point of leak or rupture. Despite its knowledge, Sunoco commenced HVL operations and knowingly placed Complainants in that danger zone. 5 9. Complainants believe and therefore aver that respondents have exposed them to an immediate risk of permanent injury, death, or preperty damage ?orn the Operation of MEI and intends to shortly be doing the same ?om the operation of the workaround pipeline. Count I: Violation of 49 CFR 8 195.440. 60. 1 - 59 above are hereby incorporated by reference thereto. 61. As set forth more in detail above, the route of MEI and the workaround pipeline through and near Complainants? lands poses dangers to them, their families and their communities. 62. Complainants believe that MEI and the workaround pipeline have leaked multiple times in the past and are likely to leak again. 63. Sunoco?s failure to create a legally compliant public awareness program only increases those dangers. 64. Complainants all are persons who have standing to enforce applicable law and who are endangered by Sunoco?s acts and omissions. 65. While no one can predict exactly where and when a leak or rupture might take place, the consequences of future leaks and ruptures include the risk of death, permanent injury and/or extensive damage to property. 17 66. Failure to shut down the Mariner pipelines pending review of Sunoco?s Public Awareness Program could result in such losses. 67. Sunoco?s failure to create a legally compliant public awareness program violates 49 CFR 195.440. WHEREFORE, Complainants respectfully request that the Commission enter an Order directing Sunoco permanently to cease operation of the 8-inch pipeline; cease operation of the workaround pipeline, NIE2, and and (0) grant such other and further relief as may be apprOpriate. Count II: Violation of 66 1501 and 52 Pa. Code 5 59.33 68. 1 67 above are hereby incorporated by reference thereto. 69. Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code also states that ?every public utility shall furnish and maintain adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities. . 70. Further, 52 Code ?59.33(b) provides in pertinent part that ?[e]ach public utility shall at all times use every reasonable effort to properly warn and protect the public from danger, and shall exercise reasonable care to reduce the hazards to which employees, customers and others may be subjected to by reason of its equipment and facilities.? 71. Sunoco?s failure to create a legally compliant public awareness program violates 66 1501 as well as 52 Code WHEREFORE, Complainants respectfully request that the Commission enter an Order directing Sunoco permanently to cease Operation of the 8?inch MEI pipeline; cease operation of the workaround pipeline, MEZ, and and gant such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 18 Count Violation of 49 CFR 8 195.248 72. I 71 above are hereby incorporated by reference thereto. 73. MEI and the workaround pipeline are located within 50 feet of private dwellings, schools, and elder care facilities and facilities for adults with disabilities, despite being less than 48 inches underground in some locations. 74. 49 CFR 195.248, incorporated by reference into the PUC regulations, provides that a pipe installed in an industrial, commercial, or residential area must be installed so that the cover between the top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater natural bottom is at least thirty?six (3 6) inches below ground surface. 75. In addition, 49 CFR incorporated by reference into the PUC regulations, provides that: ?No pipeline may be located within 50 feet (15 meters) of any private dwelling, or any industrial building or place of public assembly in which persons work, congregate, or assemble, unless it is provided with at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of cover in addition to that prescribed in 195.248.? 76. MEI and the workaround pipeline are located within 50 feet of private dwellings in Chester and Delaware Counties. 77. Upon information and belief, and the workaround pipeline are located at or around 24 inches or less below ground surface, not 48 inches or more, within parts of Chester and Delaware Counties. 78. The shallowness of MEI and the workaround pipeline increase the risk of damage to the pipeline resulting from construction activities including those associated with the construction of ME2 and MEZX, and other construction activities or events. 19 79. The shallowness of MEI and the workaround pipeline increases the risk of harm to residents and homes in Chester and Delaware Counties in the case of a leak, rupture, or other catastrophic event. 80. The PUC has the right and the obligation to compel Sunoco to comply with the law. WHEREFORE, Complainants respectfully request that the Commission enter an Order directing Sunoco permanently to cease Operation of the 8-inch MEI pipeline; cease operation of the workaround pipeline, ME2, and and (0) grant such other and further relief as may be appropriate. Dated: November 16, 2018 ReSpectfully submitted, fr! i - Ni: 715532 'Eh??e?l mingein, Esq. Pinnola Bomstein PAID No. 21328 Email: mbomstein?lgmailnom Suite 2126 Land Title Building 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Tel: (215) 592-8383 Attorney for Complainants 20 EX. Sunoco Logistics Sumac Pipeline LE Operator of the Inland and Harbor pipeline systems on are receiving this brochure bermuse Sonoco Pipeline LP. operates a pipeline in your ur pound pipelines movie i a safe and efficient method of transporting a variety ot products. rcluding crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene. heating oil, jet fuel, butane, ethane, propane, and atural gas. ?o?lrolcuni pipelines to loop dominantly here are alums! 200,000 miles of petroleum pipelines in the United States. According to the 1,1,5, document of transmit lotion,pipelines are the. most'rellableand safest way to transport the turns I slur to of natural 'tl eUrr te?i States. Pipelines transport two-thirds of all .. re crude oil and refined products in the United States. Pipelines are made of steel, covered with protective coating and buried underground. They are tested and maintained through the use of leaning devices, diagnostic tools. and cathodic protection. Since Americans consume over 700 gallons of petroleum products per day, pipelines are an essential component of our nation?s Ifrastructure. receives-wu- Safe lalntaining safe pipeline operations is critical in all areas where we operate. in high opulation and environmentally sensitive areas known as High Consequence Areas, re perform additional inspections and analyses as part of our integrity Management rograrn Additional information on our efforts is available on our website: mounocologistioscom. th?m canceromyouog. lineup coll err nature you dig no easy phone call to 811 starts the process to have your underground pipelines and utility lines rarhed. When you call 81 i from anywhere in the country, your call will be routed to your state One ?i all Center, who will contact underground facility owners in the area. So you can dig sately, Suooco ipeline personnel will contact you if one of our pipelines are in the area of the planned excavation. lore information about 81 is at new to rovooneovtonree "erroneous lost pipelines are underground, where they are more protected from the elements and minimize rterierence with surface uses. Even so, pipeline rights?of?way are clearly identified by pipeline iarkers along pipeline routes that identify the approximatew-NOT EXACTmlooation of the pipeline. very pipeline marker contains information identifying the company homeroom: rat operates the pipeline, the product transported, and a phone umber that should he called In the event of an emergency. larkers do not indicate pipeline burial depth, which will ary. Markers are typically seen where a pipeline intersects a tract, highway or railway. For any person to willfully deface, anrage, remove, or destroy any pipeline marker is a federal crime. 'ipelfne Marker? This marker is the most common. it contains Sunoco Pipeline information, type product, and our emergency contact number. Size, shape and color may vary. ierial Marker ?i?hoso skyward facing markers are used by patrol planes that monitor pipeline rules. lasing Vent Marker - - this marker indicates that a pipeline (protected by a steel outer casing) are ulry roadway, rail line or other crossing. la ?55? '1 lines would you recognize a pipeline lean? While pipelines are the safest method airfoil-sporting the fuel and products we use every day, sunning how to recognize a pipeline leak is important. The following may indicate a pipeline leak: u, .5 papal? Liquid pools,- dry soil/vegetation, Continuous bobbiing in wet or ?ooded areas, on water surfaces. ?and vapdrcus fogs crooning dirt around _a -. pipeline area can-alibi? indicative of a pipeline leak. Dead or discoio'rt-rd plants than" Otherwise healthy area of Vegetation or frozen ground in warm weather are other signs. -oe;vaume storage from' a (inlet biasing to a loud roar depending on the Size of the lealr and pipeline:_sysremone unusual'smeil, ?lealrs; 3' - [terrorism centerpieces-cue writ-comatose a'ccbnipanypipetine hat to do in the count a load were to occur: a Public. safety and protecting the environment are the top priorities; a nun on any equipment and eliminate any ignition sources without risking injury. tantra the area by foot immediately. Try to direct any other bystanders to leave the area. Attempt to stay upwind. 't - From a safe location, cartel? or your local emergency response number and call the 24?hour) emergency number for the pipeline operator. Provide your name, phone number, a brief r? description and location of the incident so a proper response can be initiated. not not to do in the count a lean were to occur: 0 no rid'i'cause any open flame or other potential source of ignition such as an electrical switch, vehicle ignition, light a match, etc. Do not start motor vehicles or electrical equipment. Do not ring doorbells to notify others of the leak. Knock with your hand to avoid potential sparks from knockers. . no did?? come into direct contact with any escaping liquids or gas. . on rear drive into a leak or vapor cloud while leaving the area. - dd dill attempt to operate any pipeline valves yourself. You may inadvertently route more product to the leak or cause a secondary incident. a no iidlattempt to erdinguish a petroleum product fire. Wait for local firemen and other professionals trained to deal with such emergencies. hat to do in case at a pipeline if you cause or witness even minor damage to a pipeline or its protective coating, please immediately notify the pipeline company. Even a small disturbance to a pipeline may cause a future leak. A gouge, scraps, dent or crease is cause enough for the company to inspect the damage and make repairs. All damages to underground gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities are required by law to be reported to the operator: Excavators must notify the pipeline company immediately upon damaging a pipeline. EX. Whatshould i do it I suspect a leak? - leave the area inunediatelyon ioetand were others to etayaway. - lihandon any equipment being used in ornearthe area. - Avoid any open ?ame or other sources at ignition. - Ball Hit orioaal lawenioroementlrom a sale location. - - Do notattemptto operate pipeline values. Know what's below. Call before you dig. Don't everassume you know where the underground utilities are located. line oithe greatest single challenges to safe pipeline operations is the accidental damage caused by excavation. in accordance with state and federal guidelines, a damage prevention program has been established to prevent damage to from excavation activities, using neeaneehanicai or mechanical equipment or explosives to move earth, rock or other material below existing grade. laws vary hystate, hot meal require a cailto Bil between to to 72 hours heiore you plan to dig. Your local tine-Call Center will letyou knew lithere are any buried utilities in the area. and the utility companies will be noti?ed to identity and clearly mark the location at their lines at no cost to pen. Wait for the site to he marked. Maeking could he either by paint, flags or stakes. APWA Color Code l:l Proposed excavation iemporarpsoroeymarkings iighiingcahles E3 materials ersignai lines, calaiesorcenduit Petahlenetet Sewersandrirainiines llyou should happen to strike the pipeline while working in the area, it is important that you phone us immediately. Even seemingly minor damage, such as a dent or chipped pipeline coating. could. result in