{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320125008","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":"2012-04-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(12), 195.404(a), 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.56(a), 195.567(a), 195.583(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320125008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(c)(12),  195.404(a),  195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.56(a),  195.567(a),  195.583(b). The case was opened on 2012-04-26 and is reported as closed as of 2016-06-03. Proposed civil penalty: $135,500. Assessed civil penalty: $135,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320125008_Closure Letter_06032016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125008/320125008_Closure%20Letter_06032016.pdf\n\n320125008_Closure Letter_06032016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125008/320125008_Closure%20Letter_06032016_text.pdf\n\n320125008_Final Order_07082014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125008/320125008_Final%20Order_07082014.pdf\n\n320125008_Final Order_07082014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125008/320125008_Final%20Order_07082014_text.pdf\n\n320125008_Operator Response and Request for Time Extension_06012012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125008/320125008_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Time%20Extension_06012012.pdf\n\n320125008_Closure Letter_06032016_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 3, 2016\nMr. Craig O. Pierson\nPresident\nMarathon Pipeline, LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nRE: CPF 3-2012-5008\nDear Mr. Pierson:\nOn July 8, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Marathon Pipeline, LLC, a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation\nyou provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you\nhave complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320125008_Final Order_07082014_text.pdf\n\nJULY 8, 2014\nMr. Craig O. Pierson\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nRe: CPF No. 3-2012-5008\nDear Mr. Pierson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $135,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nMarathon Pipeline, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Central Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2012-5008\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom July 12 through December 3, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Marathon\nPipe Line, LLC (Marathon or Respondent), in the Ohio area. Marathon and Ohio River Pipe\nLine, LLC, own a network of pipeline systems, including approximately 962 miles of common-\ncarrier crude oil pipelines and approximately 1,819 miles of common-carrier product pipelines\nextending across nine states.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 26, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Marathon had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nassessing a civil penalty of $135,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nMarathon responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested several of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Marathon also proposed a compromise\npenalty offer of $30,000. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right\nto one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.402, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n1 http://www.marathonpipeline.com/Who We Are/Investor Information/ (last accessed December 6, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations\nand emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding\n15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall\nbe prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for designating mainline valves and conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities on those valves. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Marathon failed\nto properly classify certain valves as mainline valves, based on its own definition of a mainline\nvalve set forth in the company’s procedure MPLMNT115, Section 7.1; therefore, Marathon did\nnot properly designate nine of its mainline valves for inspection twice each calendar year but not\nto exceed 15 months.\nIn its Response, Marathon contested this allegation, arguing that a review of the nine valves\nlisted in the Notice would indicate that six were, in fact, not mainline valves and therefore not\nsubject to the twice-yearly inspection requirement. The company asserted that the following\nvalves were properly identified as non-mainline valves: VALV – 02065 PL1 pig trap on the\nWoodriver-to- Clermont line; VALV – 020566 HWRT valve on the pig trap; valve at the\nExplorer station on the lateral line valve; the valve on the pig launcher at Martinsville 6751 + 39\nMLV; and the valves inside of Marathon’s Speedway Station.2\nUpon review of the diagrams provided by Marathon of VALV-02065 PLI pig trap on the\nWoodriver-to-Clermont line, the VALV-020566 HWRT valve on the pig trap, and the valves\ninside the Speedway Station, it is apparent that those valves were capable of full-volume flow off\nthe mainline and used to isolate mainline sections because they were the last shutoff valves\nbefore the pig trap. Most trap isolation and bypass valves are the first line of defense in the event\nof an emergency. Further, the valve on the pig launcher at Martinsville 6751 + 39 MLV was also\ncapable of full-volume flow off the mainline and used to isolate the mainline valve because it\n2 Marathon defined “Mainline valve” and Non-mainline valve” in MPLMNT115 as follows:\n“Mainline valves are valves capable of full volume flow of the mainline which: (1) are\nused to isolate mainline sections or (2) are the first valve off the mainline in a lateral line\nused to isolate the mainline from other facilities (i.e. pump station, tank farm, low\npressure manifold, etc.).\nNon-mainline valves are capable of full volume flow of the mainline and are located\nwithin a facility that is isolated by the mainline valves that are located within or directly\nadjacent to the facility (station, junction, etc.). Examples of non-mainline valves include\nbut are not limited to unit suction, unit discharge, bypass, control, manifold, and tank\nvalves.”\n\n\n\n3\nwas the final isolation valve before the lateral valves. I am unable to provide an analysis of the\nvalve at the Explorer station because the diagram provided by the operator in its Response is\nillegible. Therefore, I am withdrawing this one instance of violation involving the Martinsville\npig launcher valve. As for the remaining violations, the evidence supports the allegations of\nviolation set forth in the Notice. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nMarathon violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own written procedures for\ndesignating mainline valves and conducting normal operations and maintenance activities on\nthose valves.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities:\n(i) Breakout tanks;\n(ii) Pump stations;\n(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;\n(iv) Pipeline valves;\n(v) Facilities to which § 195.402(c)(9) applies;\n(vi) Rights-of-way; and\n(vii) Safety devices to which § 195.428 applies.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) by failing to maintain\ncurrent maps of its pipeline systems. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Marathon’s\nGeographic Information Systems alignment sheets were developed with the c onstruction\ninventories and had not been proofed or updated by field personnel since 1999. The Notice\nalleged that the company’s alignment sheets showed a number of errors, including elevations,\nlegends, valve locations, pipe coating, pipe wall thickness and grade.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) by failing to maintain\ncurrent maps of its pipeline systems.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\nmainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Marathon inspected VALV – 103404 VDC Philips Junction\nMLV 15 only once in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 calendar years. In addition, it alleged that\n\n\n\n4\nVALV HG17 was inspected only once in 2009 and not inspected at all in 2010.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation but requested a reduction of the proposed\npenalty, which I will address in the Assessment of Penalties section below. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by\nfailing to inspect each mainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice\neach calendar year.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it\nis functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate\nfrom the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach relief valve, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine that it was functioning\nproperly, was in good mechanical condition, and was adequate from the standpoint of capacity\nand reliability of operation for the service in which it was used. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Marathon did not inspect all thermal relief valves at the Harrison, East Spartan, Robinson,\nand Louisville stations. Additionally, inspections at Patoka, Martinsville, Clermont, and Findlay\nRV6 exceeded the 15-month maximum interval by five days, from April 8, 2008, to July 13,\n2009.\nIn its Response, Marathon admitted it had failed to inspect all of the valves at the Louisville\nStation and had improperly numbered the valves at Wood River. Respondent also claimed that it\ndid not operate the Harrison location and provided evidence that it had timely inspected the\nvalves at Findlay RV6. Marathon argued that it had not been provided with sufficient\ninformation to determine the validity of the remaining claims for the East Sparta, Robinson,\nPatoka, Martinsville, and Clermont locations.\nBased on the evidence that the Respondent has provided, it appears that Marathon did timely\ninspect the valves at Findlay RV6 and that it did not own the Harrison location. As for its\nargument about insufficient information as to the remaining claims, as noted in the Violation\nReport, the devices were not uniquely numbered by Marathon; therefore, the Notice could not\nidentify which specific valves were not inspected. Moreover, exit interviews with Marathon\npersonnel indicated that the company did not consider certain safety valves to be jurisdictional to\nthe U.S. Department of Transportation and therefore were not inspected. In order to maintain\ncompliance with the regulations, an operator must not only perform the required inspections but\nbe able to present evidence during the inspection that it has complied.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test each relief valve at intervals not exceeding 15 months\nto determine that it was functioning properly, was in good mechanical condition, and was\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it\nwas used.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(a), which states:\n§ 195.567 Which pipelines must have test leads and what must I do to\ninstall and maintain the leads?\n(a) General. Except for offshore pipelines, each buried or submerged\npipeline or segment of pipeline under cathodic protection required by this\nsubpart must have electrical test leads for external corrosion control.\nHowever, this requirement does not apply until December 27, 2004 to\npipelines or pipeline segments on which test leads were not required by\nregulations in effect before January 28, 2002.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(a) by failing to have electrical\ntest leads for external corrosion control on each pipeline segment under cathodic protection.\nSpecifically, it alleged that Marathon systematically incorporated a significant number of\noperational bonds for connecting multiple segments of pipeline together to protect the system as\na whole, but failed to install test leads for each segment.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(a) by failing to have electrical test\nleads for external corrosion control on each pipeline segment under cathodic protection.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $135,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $63,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n\n\n\n6\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its own written procedures for designating mainline\nvalves and conducting normal operations and maintenance activities on those valves. As\ndiscussed above, I found that the valves in question did, in fact, meet Marathon’s own definition\nof mainline valves. Respondent requested a penalty reduction based upon its good-faith belief\nthat some of the cited valves were not mainline valves. However, as discussed above, Marathon\nfailed to follow its own procedures in how such valves should be classified. The timely\ninspection for these valves is critical to the safe operation of the pipeline system since they\nprovide the first line of defense in the event of an emergency. I am not convinced that a\nmisidentification of the valves based on its own procedures entitles Marathon to a penalty\nreduction based on a good-faith mistake in its interpretation of a regulatory requirement.\nAs for the single instance discussed above, where one charge was withdrawn based on the\nillegibility of the document provided by Marathon, I have reviewed the penalty assessment\ncriteria and calculation for this Item and find that withdrawal of this single charge would not\naffect the penalty as originally proposed. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $63,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a), for failing to maintain current maps of its pipeline systems. Marathon\nneither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in\nthe proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $26,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a).\nItem 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), for failing to inspect each mainline valve twice each calendar year at\nintervals not exceeding 7½ months. Marathon did not contest the allegation of violation but\nsought a lower penalty of $12,000 for two reasons. First, the company claimed to have now\ninspected all of the mainline valves in question and that “they have successfully passed\ninspection on a semi-annual basis….” Second, Marathon asserted that the valves “are not\nlocated in remote or isolated locations” and “have not and do not present significant safety\nrisks.”3\nUnder PHMSA’s standard penalty assessment criteria, I see no reason to reduce the proposed\npenalty. Respondent's failure to properly inspect these mainline valves placed the safety of its\npipeline at risk, as well as that of the public, property, and the environment in the vicinity of the\npipeline. Fully functioning valves are extremely important to mitigate damage during an\nemergency, as mainline valves can be closed to isolate part of a pipeline system and limit the\nvolume of product released in the event of a spill.\nNeither does the fact that the valves were successfully tested after the PHMSA inspection and\nfound to be in good working order support a reduction. In applying the penalty assessment\ncriteria, PHMSA does not make deductions for subsequent inspections or tests that turn out to be\nsatisfactory or to show compliance. Such an approach would undermine any incentive for\noperators to conduct routine inspections properly and that play an integral part in normal\n3 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n7\noperations and maintenance. Although, PHMSA appreciates the efforts by Marathon after the\nNotice was issued, the proposed penalty reflects the company’s failure to conduct required\ninspections prior to the PHMSA inspection. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,300 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $135,500.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $135,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 5, 8 and 9 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.402(a), 195.404(a), 195.428(a) and 195.567(a), respectively.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 2), Respondent must apply its\ndefinitions of “mainline” and “non-mainline valves” to all valves on its pipeline\nsystem to determine which additional valves require inspection. Each previously\nunidentified valve that meets the definition of “mainline valve” shall be added to the\nMarathon valve inspection schedule and inspected.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a) (Item 5), Respondent must review all\nalignment sheets and its GIS system for incorrect or omitted information. Upon\ncompletion, each sheet shall be reviewed for accuracy by the subject matter expert\nassigned to the field areas that each sheet represents.\n\n\n\n8\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.428(a) (Item 8), Respondent must review\nits facilities, identify all thermal relief devices, and uniquely label them. Marathon\nshall then inspect each relief valve that is not currently within its inspection cycle to\ndetermine whether it is functioning properly.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.567(a) (Item 9), pertaining to having test\nleads on each segment of pipeline, Marathon must identify and document all locations\nof operational bonds. This identification will reveal the location of each segment of\npipeline. Marathon must then ensure that each segment has a corresponding test lead.\nFor segments identified as lacking test leads, the company shall install proper test\nleads.\n5. Marathon shall perform the compliance requirements above within 180 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order. The Director may extend the deadline based on a written\nrequest justifying an extension for good cause.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.56 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to report a safety-\nrelated condition within five working days after the day a representative of the\noperator first determines that the condition exists, but not later than 10 working\ndays after discovery;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review its\nprocedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies, at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.56(a)(12) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to establish\nand maintain liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public officials to\nlearn the responsibility and resources of each government organization that may\nrespond to a hazardous liquid or pipeline emergency;\n\n\n\n9\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\npipeline right-of-way at intervals not exceeding three weeks, but at least 26 times\neach calendar year; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(b) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to monitor\natmospheric corrosion control by giving particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air\ninterfaces and under disbanded coatings.\nMarathon presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28150}