{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320205033W","title":"MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-12-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.208, 195.412(a), 195.573(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205033w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205033w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205033w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320205033W","body":"Warning Letter involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.208,  195.412(a),  195.573(a)(1). The case was opened on 2020-12-16 and is reported as closed as of 2020-12-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320205033W_Warning Letter_12162020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205033W/320205033W_Warning%20Letter_12162020.pdf\n\n320205033W_Warning Letter_12162020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205033W/320205033W_Warning%20Letter_12162020_text.pdf\n\n320205033W_Warning Letter_12162020_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Shawn M. Lyon – smlyon@marathonpetroleum.com and\nAaron Martinez – awmartinez@marathonpetroleum.com\nDecember 16, 2020\nShawn M. Lyon\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, Ohio 45840\nCPF 3-2020-5033W\nDear Mr. Lyon:\nFrom May 8th, 2017 through March 22nd, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your procedures, records, and pipeline facilities\nin the following operating areas: Wood River, Martinsville, Griffith, Patoka, Stoy, Clermont,\nLima, Heath, Owensboro, Northest, and East Sparta. The inspections covered assets in Illinois,\nIndiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. §195.208 Welding of supports and braces.\nSupports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a\npressure of more than 100 p.s.i.\nMarathon welded several pipe supports directly to the pipe at the Louisville-Algonquin\nTerminal. This piping was immediately downstream of the pumps at that facility and would\nregularly see pressures above 100 psi. According to Marathon personnel, the piping in question\n\n\n\nwas installed in the early 2000’s, making compliance with the requirements of §195.208\nmandatory.\nMarathon implemented a program to assess the pipe supports throughout their company as a\nresult of this finding. Several pipe supports were visually inspected and assessed with non-\ndestructive testing at the Louiseville-Algonquin Terminal, with no issues identified. Marathon’s\nprogram requires them to either derate the line to operate below 100 psi or, if that is not\npracticable, remove the welded pipe support, reassess the pipe for integrity issues and repair as\nneeded, and install a pipe support that complies with 49 CFR 195.\n2. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 27 times each\ncalendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-\nof-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate\nmeans of traversing the right-of-way.\nMarathon failed to adequately inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to their pipeline right\nof way near New Harmony, Indiana in May of 2017. Marathon utilized aerial patrol to fulfill the\nrequirements of §195.412 but PHMSA personnel witnessed the right-of-way in such an\novergrown state that inspecting it on foot would be challenging, let alone aerial patrol. Marathon\ngenerally cycles their areas on a three year rotation of right-of-way clearing. The area of right-of-\nway near New Harmony, Indiana was at the end of its three year cycle and was due to be cleared\nlater in 2017, according to Marathon personnel. PHMSA personnel took photos of the area to\nillustrate the issue.\n3. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic\nprotection required by this subpart complies with §195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are\nimpractical for separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated\npipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months.\nMarathon failed to incorporate recent close interval survey (CIS) data in a timely manner for the\n2017 annual test point survey for the Heath to Dayton line segment (Unit 12783), as required by\ntheir use of target pipe-to-soil potentials. Marathon’s process for determining compliance with\nthe requirements of §195.571 included establishing target potentials from CIS data and then\nusing those targets instead of an on-off survey each year. A CIS was conducted in 2016 and that\ndata took more than a year to get incorporated into the new target potentials for the area.\n2\n\n\n\nAdditionally, Marathon designated certain points as “sharp point test points” where the soil\nvoltage drop (IR) was considered to be 0 mV due to placement of the reference electrode\nadjacent to the pipe. There were several points identified as using this method that showed a shift\nin potential during the most recent CIS. This is indicative of IR being present and therefore it\nneeded to be considered. Section 6.3.1 of NACE SP 0169, incorporated by reference, states\n“Placing the reference electrode next to the pipe surface may not be at the pipe-electrolyte\ninterface. A reference electode placed at an externally coated pipe surface may not significantly\nreduce soil voltage drop in the measurement if the nearest coating holiday is remote from the\nreference electrode location.” The records provided to PHMSA during the inspection did not\ndemonstrate sufficient consideration of IR at these points.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before\nJuly 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,\n2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring\nprior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 3-2020-5033W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":7811}