# MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

420155024_Closure Letter_11142018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Closure%20Letter_11142018.pdf

420155024_Closure Letter_11142018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Closure%20Letter_11142018_text.pdf

420155024_Final Order_12022016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Final%20Order_12022016.pdf

420155024_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Final%20Order_12022016_text.pdf

420155024_NOPV PCO_10262015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_NOPV%20PCO_10262015.pdf

420155024_NOPV PCO_10262015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_NOPV%20PCO_10262015_text.pdf

420155024_Operator Pre-Hearing Submissions_05132016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submissions_05132016.pdf

420155024_Operator Response to Notice_12172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155024/420155024_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12172015.pdf

420155024_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf

December 2, 2016
Mr. Craig Pierson
President
Marathon Pipe Line, LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840
Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5024
Dear Mr. Pierson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation, withdraws one allegation of violation, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Marathon Pipe Line, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the
compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Vince Murchison, Murchison Law Firm,
325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2700, Dallas, Texas 75201
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Marathon Pipe Line, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5024
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On September 8-12, 16-17, and 22-25, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Marathon
Pipe Line, LLC (Marathon or Respondent) in Findlay, OH, Garyville and Zachary, LA, and
Pasadena, TX. Marathon operates approximately 5,510 miles of crude oil, petroleum products,
and highly volatile liquids pipeline systems throughout the Central, Southern, Western, and
Southwest Regions of the United States.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated October 26, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Marathon had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.264 and 195.588 and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated December 17, 2015 (Response) and May 13,
2016 (Pre-Hearing Submission). Respondent contested all of the allegations and requested a
hearing. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held on May 24, 2016 in
Houston, Texas, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. At the
hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post-
hearing statement for the record, by letter dated July 7, 2016 (Closing). Pursuant to
§ 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of Respondent’s response material
on August 18, 2016.
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Oct. 26, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 4-2015-5024
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.264, which states in
relevant part:
§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/
emergency venting or pressure/
vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.
(a) . . . .
(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section
requires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks specified:
(1) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as
API Std 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C)), the installation of
impoundment must be in accordance with the following sections of NFPA-
30 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3);
(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance
with section 22.11.2; and
(ii) Impoundment by drainage to a remote impounding area must be
installed in accordance with section 22.11.1.
(2) For tanks built to API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3), the installation of impoundment must be in accordance with
section 5 or 11 of API Std 2510.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.264 by failing to install
impoundment for aboveground breakout tanks as required by NFPA 30 and § 195.264.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s tank dike capacity for tanks 268-2, 100-3,
80-4, and 210-6 at the Pasadena Station located in Pasadena, TX was insufficient. The dike area
capacity was 228,864 barrels (bbl) and the capacity of the largest tank (tank 268-2) was 268,561
bbl.2
At the hearing, Respondent presented a Pasadena Station SPCC Site & Flow Diagram dated
October 23, 2012.3 The Flow Diagram and its containment notes indicated that the diked area
containing Tank #7, which is the largest Tank in that containment area, has a capacity of 264,417
bbl and the containment area which includes 2-4, and 6-14 have an overall dike area of 527,158
bbl.4 Respondent stated that this record indicated that their impoundment capacities were in
compliance with § 195.264(b).
2 Notice at 2.
3 Hearing ex. 22.
4 Hearing ex. 22; Recommendation, (Aug. 18, 2016) (on file with PHMSA) 1-2.



CPF No. 4-2015-5024
Page 3
After reviewing the presented exhibit and flow diagram, OPS agreed that Respondent had
installed impoundment capacities for aboveground breakout tanks as required by NFPA 30 and
§ 195.264, and recommended the alleged violation be withdrawn.5
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent’s impoundment of the
aboveground breakout tanks at issue complied with NFPA 30 and § 195.264. Based upon the
foregoing, I hereby order that Item 1 be withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.588, which states in
relevant part:
§ 195.588 What standards apply to direct assessment?
(a) . . . .
(b) The requirements for performing external corrosion direct
assessment are as follows:
(1) General. You must follow the requirements of NACE SP0502
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). Also, you must develop and
implement a External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) plan that
includes procedures addressing pre-assessment, indirect examination, direct
examination, and post-assessment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.588 by failing to follow the
requirements of NACE SP0502 when performing ECDA to assess the integrity of line pipe that
could affect a High Consequence Area (HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent
performed several baseline assessments of line pipe that could affect an HCA, including: (1) The
Pasadena-Pasadena Colonial 36-inch Fuel Oil pipeline in 2006 and the reassessment of the line
pipe in 2011, including three areas of cased pipeline crossings; (2) The Pasadena-Pasadena
Colonial 36-inch Gasoline pipeline on July 28, 2006 and the reassessment of the line pipe on
November 18, 2011, including three areas of cased pipeline crossings; (3) The Pasadena-
Pasadena GATX 16-inch pipeline on December 9, 2005 and the reassessment of the line pipe on
November 1, 2010, including five areas of cased pipeline crossings; and (4) The Pasadena
Explorer-Pasadena 16-inch Purge pipeline on July 28, 2006 and the reassessment of the line pipe
on December 2, 2011, including three areas of cased pipeline crossings.
The Notice alleged that when Respondent performed the baseline assessments, Respondent did
not assess the line pipe in any of these cased crossings using ECDA in accordance with NACE
SP0502. Respondent used its “ECDA Procedures for Cased Pipe,” but the Notice alleged those
procedures were not in accordance with § 195.588 because the procedures do not follow the
requirements of NACE SP0502.6
5 Recommendation at 2.
6 Recommendation at 2.



CPF No. 4-2015-5024
Page 4
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but contested the Proposed Compliance
Order.7 Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.588 by failing to follow the requirements of NACE SP0502 when performing ECDA to
assess the integrity of line pipe that could affect an HCA.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.264 and 195.588, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each
person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601.
Item 1 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 1
are not included in this Order.
With regard to Item 2, Respondent provided records demonstrating the assessment of Pasadena-
Pasadena GATX 16-inch line was successful. OPS agreed that the Pasadena-Pasadena GATX
16-inch line is in compliance with pipeline safety regulations.8 Therefore, the compliance terms
proposed in the Notice for Pasadena-Pasadena GATX 16-inch line are not included in this Order.
With regard to the remaining pipes at issue, Respondent contended that it was not required to use
ECDA to inspect the pipes, and therefore the terms of the proposed Compliance Order must be
withdrawn.9 Respondent also argued that it could not comply with the deadlines set out in the
proposed Compliance Order.10 At the hearing, Respondent presented three alternate methods of
inspecting its pipes, along with a proposed timeline for completing reassessments using these
methods.11 OPS agreed to review the submission and approve an appropriate assessment method
and timeline to complete the reassessments.12
Accordingly, I am amending the Proposed Compliance Order to permit submission of a plan by
Respondent for completing the reassessments in accordance with the regulation. Pursuant to the
authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the
7 Notice at 3-4; Closing at 23.
8 Closing, Ex. C; Recommendation at 3.
9 Closing at 25-27.
10 Closing at 28-32.
11 Hearing, Exs. 23 and 25.
12 Recommendation at 3.



CPF No. 4-2015-5024
Page 5
following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its
operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.588 (Item 2), for the Pasadena-Pasadena
Colonial 36” Fuel Oil, Pasadena-Pasadena Colonial 36” Gasoline, and Pasadena
Explorer - Pasadena 16” Purge pipelines, Respondent must submit to the Director,
Southwest Region, for prior approval a plan to reassess the pipelines. The plan must
include the assessment method(s) to be used, must provide the procedures or
processes for performing the assessments, and must include a schedule with dates for
performing each assessment. The information required by this paragraph must be
submitted for the Director’s approval within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order;
2. Upon written approval of Respondent’s plan by Director, Respondent must assess the
line pipe in cased crossings listed above in accordance with the approved plan,
including the approved schedule; and
3. Respondent must submit to the Director, Southwest Region, a report of each
completed assessment performed and any remedial actions performed or scheduled on
the cased crossings noted above, within 60 days of completing the assessment.
It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director, Southwest
Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs
be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,
procedures, studies, and analyses, and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and
other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed the amounts set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 (currently $205,638 for each violation for
each day the violation continues) or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the
Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all
other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of this order, including corrective action,
remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.



CPF No. 4-2015-5024
Page 6
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 2, 2016
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420155024_Closure Letter_11142018_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 14, 2018
Timothy J. Aydt
President
Marathon Pipeline, LLC
539 South Main Street
Findlay, Ohio 45840
CPF 4-2015-5024
Dear Mr. Aydt:
On December 2, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to
Marathon Pipeline, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Final Order included a
Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been determined
that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters
involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 15966