PA Environment Digest

Share this:

PUC Approves $48,000 Refund To Sunoco Pipeline On A Penalty It Paid For Mariner East Pipeline Construction Violations

On December 8, the Public Utility Commission voted unanimously to approve a $48,000 refund of a $51,000 penalty paid to the PUC by Sunoco Pipeline for Mariner East Pipeline construction violations.

In March, a PUC Administrative Law Judge Joel H. Cheskis issued an initial decision against Sunoco/Energy Transfer which found the company violated the Public Utility Code during the construction of the Mariner East Pipeline in Middletown Township, Delaware County with regard to fire hazards, noise levels and communications with the public at the Glen Riddle Apartment Complex. Read more here.

Judge Cheskis proposed a $51,000 penalty-- $1,000 each for the violations identified by the judge. Sunoco Pipeline paid the fine on August 2, 2022.

On September 13, 2022, the full PUC reconsidered the $51,000 penalty and reduced it to $3,000 based on a new finding the Commission did not intend to set a statewide noise limit for construction operations of this type. Read more here.

PUC Chairman Gladys Brown Dutrieuille made a statement prior to the vote saying while she opposed the reconsideration of the penalty in September, she supports the refund to Sunoco Pipeline.

“On December 2, 2022, Glen Riddle Station LP filed a formal complaint alleging that Sunoco Pipeline LP’s construction of Mariner East 2 and Mariner East 2X pipelines across and adjacent to its buildings, which house 124 residential apartments, caused severe disruption to its residents sufficient to constitute unreasonable service by the utility.

“Glen Riddle claimed that Sunoco's actions adversely affected property parking and traffic safety, created an unsafe construction work site, shirked government mandated pandemic safety protocols, caused a waterline break depriving residents of water service, raised structural and storm damage concerns, drainage concerns, and that the utility failed to communicate regarding a potentially hazardous leak.

“At the June 16th, 2022 public meeting the Commission denied Sunoco's exceptions to the initial decision and sustained the ALJ's determination that Sunoco provided an unreasonable service as well as the recommended $51,000 civil penalty.

“At the August 25th, 2022 public meeting, the commission granted Sunoco's petition to reconsider and rescinded $48,000 of the civil penalty. I dissented on that vote because Sunoco failed to raise any new or novel arguments on reconsideration

“As a public service message I reiterated that had proper public notice of construction activity been given to Glen Riddle, as required by our regulations, an accord could have been reached between the parties regarding construction times and possible ways to minimize disruption to the community.

“The petition before us for consideration today is Sunoco's request for a refund of 48,000 of the 51,000 civil penalty paid.

“Although I dissented on the decision to lower the civil penalty, I agree that consistent with the majority's decision to lower the penalty, the instant petition requesting the refund should be granted.”

Previous Penalties/Charges

The PUC has collected more than $425,000 in penalties from Sunoco Pipeline for other construction and pipeline operations violations involving the Mariner East Pipeline.

The PUC also penalized Sunoco’s related company Energy Transfer Company nearly $2 million for violations related to the 2018 Revolution Pipeline explosion in Beaver County/

In addition, DEP has collected a total of more than $24 million in penalties from Sunoco related to the construction of the cross-state Mariner East Pipeline [Read more here].

In August, the Attorney General Josh Shapiro convicted Sunoco Pipeline and Northeast Pipeline Company of environmental crimes against the company related to the Mariner East and Revolution pipelines construction and operation. [Read more here].

The construction practices of the Mariner East Pipeline have resulted in the most penalties and criminal charges of any construction project in Pennsylvania’s history.

Documents related to this case can be found at PUC Docket No. C-2020-3023129. [ Click Here to conduct a docket search. ]

Related Articles - PUC Actions Mariner East:

-- AP: PUC Judge: Sunoco/Energy Transfer Failed To Protect Delaware County Community During Construction Of Mariner East Pipeline, $51,000 Penalty Proposed

-- PUC Orders More Than A Dozen Actions To Improve Safety In Construction, Operation Of Mariner East Pipelines; Sunoco Must Pay $2,000 Penalty [November, 2021]

-- PUC Judge’s Opinion Orders Sunoco To Improve Public Safety, Emergency Outreach Measures, Rebury Pipelines Related To Mariner East Pipeline Project, Full PUC Approval Needed [April, 2021]

-- PUC Approves 2nd Order On Reporting Integrity Of Sunoco's Mariner East 1 Pipeline, Leaves $200,000 Penalty In Place [May, 2020]

-- PUC Requires Remaining Life Study, Public Reporting On Integrity Of Sunoco's Mariner East I Pipeline; Issues $200,000 Penalty [March, 2020]

-- Bipartisan Pipeline Safety Legislation Highlighted By PUC Administrative Law Judge Decision In Mariner East I Pipeline Leak [January, 2020]

-- PUC Investigating Subsidence Involving Several Pipelines Near Site Of Sunoco Mariner East 2 Pipeline Construction In Delaware County [September, 2019]

-- PUC Dismisses Complaint Filed By Sen. Dinniman Against Mariner East Pipelines Per Court Order, But Continues Proceedings On Related Complaints [September, 2019]

-- PUC Refuses Sunoco Request To Resume Construction Of Mariner East 2 Pipeline In Chester County [April, 2019]

-- PUC Investigating Subsidence Near Sunoco Mariner East 2 Bypass Pipeline In Delaware County [April, 2019]