{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320075024","title":"MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-09-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412(a), 195.420(a), 195.563(a), 195.575, 195.579, 195.583.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075024.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075024.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075024","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320075024","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.412(a),  195.420(a),  195.563(a),  195.575,  195.579,  195.583. The case was opened on 2007-09-05 and is reported as closed as of 2008-11-07. Proposed civil penalty: $82,000. Assessed civil penalty: $82,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320075024_FinalOrder_11072008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075024/320075024_FinalOrder_11072008.pdf\n\n320075024_finalorder_11072008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075024/320075024_finalorder_11072008_text.pdf\n\n320075024_NOPV PCP_09052007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075024/320075024_NOPV%20PCP_09052007.pdf\n\n320075024_nopv pcp_09052007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075024/320075024_nopv%20pcp_09052007_text.pdf\n\n320075024_operator response_10012007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075024/320075024_operator%20response_10012007.pdf\n\n320075024_finalorder_11072008_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nNQV 7 ~X~\nMr. Craig O. Pierson\nVice President of Operations\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nRe: CPF No. 3-2007-5024\nDear Mr. Pierson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $82, 000. I acknowledge receipt of your wire transfer of\n$82, 000 on September 26, 2007, and accept it as payment in full of the civil penalty assessed\nherein. This case is now closed, Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ivan Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 3-2007-5024\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom April 2006 to February 2007, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, inspected the hazardous liquid\npipeline facilities and records of Marathon Pipe Line, LLC (Marathon or Respondent) in Ohio,\nMichigan, Indiana and Illinois. These facilities constitute a portion of Marathon's pipeline\nsystem, which includes more than 5, 000 miles of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines in 15\nstates. On September 5, 2007, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 207, the Director, Central\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (Director), issued to\nRespondent a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) following said\ninspections. The Notice proposed finding that Marathon had committed certain violations of 49\nC, F. R, Part 195 and assessing a civil penalty of $82, 000 for the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 1, 2007 (Response). Marathon did\nnot contest the allegations in the Notice and submitted a wire transfer in the amount of the\nproposed civil penalty ($82, 000), thereby waiving further rights to respond and authorizing the\nentry of this Final Order.\nPursuant to 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 213 and 49 U. S. C. ( 60122, I hereby find that Respondent violated\nthe following sections of 49 C. F. R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:\nItem 1. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 412(a),\nwhich states:\ng 195. 412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n\n\n\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to\neach pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving,\nflying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nSpecifically, Item 1 alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 412(a) by failing to\ninspect the surface conditions along Marathon's RIO product pipeline system, which runs\nfrom Robinson to Lima, in certain specified areas in Carmel, Indiana. Respondent's use of\naerial patrolling was ineffective due to vegetation overgrowth,\nItem 3. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ( 195. 563(a), which states:\ng 195. 563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?\n(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated,\nreplaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in $195. 401(c) must\nhave cathodic protection. The cathodic protection must be in operation not later\nthan 1 year after the pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or otherwise\nchanged, as applicable.\nSpecifically, Item 3 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $195. 563(a) by\nfailing to provide cathodic protection on a new section of pipeline running between the relief\nvalve manifold and relief tank number 2003 at Marathon's refinery in Robinson, Illinois, within\none year of construction. The new line section was placed into service on July 14, 2005, but\ncathodic protection was not put in place until July 28, 2006.\nItem 5. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. )) 195. 589(c), 195. 569, and\n195. 579(c) which state:\ng 195. 5S9 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a) \"\"\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by\nthis subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion\ncontrol measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.\nYou must retain these records for at least 5 years, except that records related\nto ) $195. 569, 195. 573(a) and (b), and 195. 579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained\nfor as long as the pipeline remains in service.\ng 195. 569 Do I have to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines?\nWhenever you have knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is\nexposed, you must examine the exposed portion for evidence of external\ncorrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If you find\nexternal corrosion requiring corrective action under $195. 585, you must\ninvestigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion\n\n\n\n(by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether\nadditional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the\nexposed portion.\ng 195. 579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) \"\"\n(c) Removing pipe Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you\nmust inspect the internal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If you\nfind internal corrosion requiring corrective action under $195. 585, you must\ninvestigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by\nvisual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether additional\ncorrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the removed pipe.\nSpecifically, Item 5 of the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to properly document corrosion\ninspections on a portion of the Princeton — Robinson 4\" LPCJ pipeline that was exposed on or\nabout April 18, 2005, and on pipe removed at the Harpster pump station during a 2005 upgrade.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nHaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I hereby assess Respondent a\ncivil penalty of $82, 000, which amount has already been paid by Respondent.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 4 and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, they are considered to be\nwarning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C. F. R. ) 195. 420(a) (Notice Item 2) — alleged failiue to maintain a valve\nnecessary for the safe operation of a pipeline in good working order at all times.\nThe AMO main line block valve on the RIO pipeline failed to close on December\n8, 2006;\n49 C. F. R. $ 195. 575 (Notice Item 4) — alleged failure to electrically test each\nelectrical isolation. Respondent did not obtain electrical readings at casings\nlocated at Milepost 1561+66 on the RIO pipeline and Milepost 3771+84 on the\n22\" crude oil pipeline; and\n49 C. F. R. $ 195. 583 (Notice Item 6) — alleged failure to fully inspect each portion\nof its pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion. Respondent failed to identify certain areas as requiring periodic\natmospheric corrosion inspections and in one instance performed an inadequate\ninspection.\n\n\n\nIn its Response, Marathon described actions it had initiated to address the cited items.\nHaving considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 205, that\nprobable violations of 49 C. F. R. $$ 195. 420(a), 195. 575, and 195, 583 occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that PHMSA finds\na violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\ng ~ (f ~\nNOV 7 2008\nDate Issued\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9628}