{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420155024","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":"2015-10-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.264, 195.588.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155024.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155024.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155024","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420155024","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.264,  195.588. The case was opened on 2015-10-26 and is reported as closed as of 2018-11-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420155024_Closure Letter_11142018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Closure%20Letter_11142018.pdf\n\n420155024_Closure Letter_11142018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Closure%20Letter_11142018_text.pdf\n\n420155024_Final Order_12022016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Final%20Order_12022016.pdf\n\n420155024_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Final%20Order_12022016_text.pdf\n\n420155024_NOPV PCO_10262015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_NOPV%20PCO_10262015.pdf\n\n420155024_NOPV PCO_10262015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_NOPV%20PCO_10262015_text.pdf\n\n420155024_Operator Pre-Hearing Submissions_05132016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submissions_05132016.pdf\n\n420155024_Operator Response to Notice_12172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12172015.pdf\n\n420155024_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 2, 2016\nMr. Craig Pierson\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nRe: CPF No. 4-2015-5024\nDear Mr. Pierson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation, withdraws one allegation of violation, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Vince Murchison, Murchison Law Firm,\n325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2700, Dallas, Texas 75201\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5024\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 8-12, 16-17, and 22-25, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline 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 Findlay, OH, Garyville and Zachary, LA, and\nPasadena, TX. Marathon operates approximately 5,510 miles of crude oil, petroleum products,\nand highly volatile liquids pipeline systems throughout the Central, Southern, Western, and\nSouthwest Regions of the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 26, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Marathon had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.264 and 195.588 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated December 17, 2015 (Response) and May 13,\n2016 (Pre-Hearing Submission). Respondent contested all of the allegations and requested a\nhearing. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held on May 24, 2016 in\nHouston, Texas, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. At the\nhearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post-\nhearing statement for the record, by letter dated July 7, 2016 (Closing). Pursuant to\n§ 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of Respondent’s response material\non August 18, 2016.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Oct. 26, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5024\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.264, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/\nemergency venting or pressure/\nvacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section\nrequires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks specified:\n(1) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as\nAPI Std 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C)), the installation of\nimpoundment must be in accordance with the following sections of NFPA-\n30 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3);\n(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance\nwith section 22.11.2; and\n(ii) Impoundment by drainage to a remote impounding area must be\ninstalled in accordance with section 22.11.1.\n(2) For tanks built to API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 195.3), the installation of impoundment must be in accordance with\nsection 5 or 11 of API Std 2510.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.264 by failing to install\nimpoundment for aboveground breakout tanks as required by NFPA 30 and § 195.264.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s tank dike capacity for tanks 268-2, 100-3,\n80-4, and 210-6 at the Pasadena Station located in Pasadena, TX was insufficient. The dike area\ncapacity was 228,864 barrels (bbl) and the capacity of the largest tank (tank 268-2) was 268,561\nbbl.2\nAt the hearing, Respondent presented a Pasadena Station SPCC Site & Flow Diagram dated\nOctober 23, 2012.3 The Flow Diagram and its containment notes indicated that the diked area\ncontaining Tank #7, which is the largest Tank in that containment area, has a capacity of 264,417\nbbl and the containment area which includes 2-4, and 6-14 have an overall dike area of 527,158\nbbl.4 Respondent stated that this record indicated that their impoundment capacities were in\ncompliance with § 195.264(b).\n2 Notice at 2.\n3 Hearing ex. 22.\n4 Hearing ex. 22; Recommendation, (Aug. 18, 2016) (on file with PHMSA) 1-2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5024\nPage 3\nAfter reviewing the presented exhibit and flow diagram, OPS agreed that Respondent had\ninstalled impoundment capacities for aboveground breakout tanks as required by NFPA 30 and\n§ 195.264, and recommended the alleged violation be withdrawn.5\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent’s impoundment of the\naboveground breakout tanks at issue complied with NFPA 30 and § 195.264. Based upon the\nforegoing, I hereby order that Item 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.588, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.588 What standards apply to direct assessment?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) The requirements for performing external corrosion direct\nassessment are as follows:\n(1) General. You must follow the requirements of NACE SP0502\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). Also, you must develop and\nimplement a External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) plan that\nincludes procedures addressing pre-assessment, indirect examination, direct\nexamination, and post-assessment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.588 by failing to follow the\nrequirements of NACE SP0502 when performing ECDA to assess the integrity of line pipe that\ncould affect a High Consequence Area (HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent\nperformed several baseline assessments of line pipe that could affect an HCA, including: (1) The\nPasadena-Pasadena Colonial 36-inch Fuel Oil pipeline in 2006 and the reassessment of the line\npipe in 2011, including three areas of cased pipeline crossings; (2) The Pasadena-Pasadena\nColonial 36-inch Gasoline pipeline on July 28, 2006 and the reassessment of the line pipe on\nNovember 18, 2011, including three areas of cased pipeline crossings; (3) The Pasadena-\nPasadena GATX 16-inch pipeline on December 9, 2005 and the reassessment of the line pipe on\nNovember 1, 2010, including five areas of cased pipeline crossings; and (4) The Pasadena\nExplorer-Pasadena 16-inch Purge pipeline on July 28, 2006 and the reassessment of the line pipe\non December 2, 2011, including three areas of cased pipeline crossings.\nThe Notice alleged that when Respondent performed the baseline assessments, Respondent did\nnot assess the line pipe in any of these cased crossings using ECDA in accordance with NACE\nSP0502. Respondent used its “ECDA Procedures for Cased Pipe,” but the Notice alleged those\nprocedures were not in accordance with § 195.588 because the procedures do not follow the\nrequirements of NACE SP0502.6\n5 Recommendation at 2.\n6 Recommendation at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5024\nPage 4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but contested the Proposed Compliance\nOrder.7 Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.588 by failing to follow the requirements of NACE SP0502 when performing ECDA to\nassess the integrity of line pipe that could affect an HCA.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.264 and 195.588, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601.\nItem 1 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 1\nare not included in this Order.\nWith regard to Item 2, Respondent provided records demonstrating the assessment of Pasadena-\nPasadena GATX 16-inch line was successful. OPS agreed that the Pasadena-Pasadena GATX\n16-inch line is in compliance with pipeline safety regulations.8 Therefore, the compliance terms\nproposed in the Notice for Pasadena-Pasadena GATX 16-inch line are not included in this Order.\nWith regard to the remaining pipes at issue, Respondent contended that it was not required to use\nECDA to inspect the pipes, and therefore the terms of the proposed Compliance Order must be\nwithdrawn.9 Respondent also argued that it could not comply with the deadlines set out in the\nproposed Compliance Order.10 At the hearing, Respondent presented three alternate methods of\ninspecting its pipes, along with a proposed timeline for completing reassessments using these\nmethods.11 OPS agreed to review the submission and approve an appropriate assessment method\nand timeline to complete the reassessments.12\nAccordingly, I am amending the Proposed Compliance Order to permit submission of a plan by\nRespondent for completing the reassessments in accordance with the regulation. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\n7 Notice at 3-4; Closing at 23.\n8 Closing, Ex. C; Recommendation at 3.\n9 Closing at 25-27.\n10 Closing at 28-32.\n11 Hearing, Exs. 23 and 25.\n12 Recommendation at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5024\nPage 5\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.588 (Item 2), for the Pasadena-Pasadena\nColonial 36” Fuel Oil, Pasadena-Pasadena Colonial 36” Gasoline, and Pasadena\nExplorer - Pasadena 16” Purge pipelines, Respondent must submit to the Director,\nSouthwest Region, for prior approval a plan to reassess the pipelines. The plan must\ninclude the assessment method(s) to be used, must provide the procedures or\nprocesses for performing the assessments, and must include a schedule with dates for\nperforming each assessment. The information required by this paragraph must be\nsubmitted for the Director’s approval within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order;\n2. Upon written approval of Respondent’s plan by Director, Respondent must assess the\nline pipe in cased crossings listed above in accordance with the approved plan,\nincluding the approved schedule; and\n3. Respondent must submit to the Director, Southwest Region, a report of each\ncompleted assessment performed and any remedial actions performed or scheduled on\nthe cased crossings noted above, within 60 days of completing the assessment.\nIt is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director, Southwest\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies, and analyses, and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\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 administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed the amounts set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 (currently $205,638 for each violation for\neach day the violation continues) or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the\nRespondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all\nother requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of this order, including corrective action,\nremain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5024\nPage 6\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 2, 2016\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420155024_Closure Letter_11142018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 14, 2018\nTimothy J. Aydt\nPresident\nMarathon Pipeline, LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, Ohio 45840\nCPF 4-2015-5024\nDear Mr. Aydt:\nOn December 2, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to\nMarathon Pipeline, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Final Order included a\nCompliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been determined\nthat you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":15966}